----7

)lt0 ~

13

02

~rn

bull

bull bull

Naviga

us ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS II II CHARLESTON DISTRICT I I II II II Charleston South Carolina

II

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Report No

bull

bility

STANLEY CONSULTANTS ____________~

Study 1977

bullbullbullbullbull

CONTENTS

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION 16-1

Purpose bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbullbull 16-1 Scope bull 0 bullbullbullbullbull 16-1bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0

Related Reports bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-2 Acknowledgements and Data Sources bullbullbullbullbull 16-3

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERiSTICS 16-5

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS bull bull bull bullbull 16-8

Federal Navigation Projects tP-B Other Navigation Projects bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull 0 16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-9

Past 16-9 Present bull bull bull bull bullbull bull bull bull 16-12 Future Potential bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbull bull 16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITy bull bullbull bull bullbull 16-13

General bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbull bull 16-13 Navigabil ity Inte rpretations bull bullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull 16-13 Ge ne ra 1 Federa 1 Court Cases bullbull bullbullbullbull bull bull 16-14 Spec if ic Federa l Court Cases bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-16 South Carol ina State Court Cases bullbullbull bull bull bullbullbullbull bullbull 16-18 No rth Carolina State Court Cases 16-21 Recent Federal Li tigation bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-21 Federal Agency Jurisdiction bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-21

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS bull 16-24

Navigation Classification Procedu res bullbullbull bullbullbull 16-24 Navigation Classifica ti o n Categories bullbullbull 16-28 Present Navigable Waters of the U Sbull bull bull bull 16-28 Historically Navigable Wate r s 16-28 Recorrmended Navigable Wa te rs of the U S bullbull bull bullbull 16-29 Recorrrnended Practical Navigable Waters of the U Sbullbullbull 16-29 Waters of the U Sbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull bullbull bull bull 16-29 SECT ION 7 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-30

16-i

CONTENTS (continued)

) BIBLI OGRAPHY 16-31

APPENDIX A STREAM CATALOG bullbull bullbullbullbullbull 16-AI

APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES 16-BI

Cited References 16-31 Other Background Information bullbull bullbullbull 16-33

TABLES

Number Page

Physical Characteristics 16-6

2 Key Stream Gaging Stations 16-7

FIGURES

Number Page

Navigability Decision Diagram 16-25

PLATES

Number Follows Page

16-1 Location Map bullbull bull 16-33

16-2 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-3 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-4 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-5 Significant Features middot 16- 33

16-i i

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

J

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to collect develop and evaluate

information on waterbodies within the boundaries of the Charleston

District Corps of Engineers for establishing the classification of

navigable waters of the U S1I and lwaters of the U SH (During the

course of this study the term navigable waters was changed to IIwaters

5 11of the U Herein references to IInavigabJe waters are synonymous

with lwaters of the U S) Study objectives include definition of the

present head of navigation the historic head of navigation the potential

head of navigation and the headwaters of all waterbodles within the

district

The information generated as a part of the study will be utilized

by the Charleston District in administration of its programs dealing

with water resource project construction permits in navigable waters of

the U 5 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) and the deposition of dredge

or fi II material in navigable waters or thei r contiguous wetlands

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

Scope

The scope of this project is generally summarized by the following

1 Outline drainage areas locate headwater points where mean

flow is five cubic feet per second (cfs) summarize lake data

(10 to 1000 acres) establish stream mileage for navigable

waters of the U 5 and prepare a stream catalog sumnary for

the district

2 Conduct field surveys of waterbodies to establish mean water

levels and obstruction clearances for evaluating the potential

head of navigation

3 Analyze available hydrological data to estimate mean maximum

and minimum discharge rates at obstructions and other selected

locations

4 Conduct a 1iterature review to identify past present and

future uses of waterbodies for interstate commerce

16-1

s Conduct a legal search to identify Federal and state court

cases which impact on navigation classifications

6 Prepare plan and profile drawings maps of the district

showing significant physical features and a map delineating

the recommended navigation classifications

7 Prepare reports on all major river basins and large lakes

ltgreater than 1000 acres) including information on physical

characteristics navigation projects interstate commerce

court decisions navigation obstructions and recommended

classification of waterbodies for navigation

8 Prepare a summary report outlining navigation-related inforshy

mation for the entire district as well as the methodology

procedures and other factors pertinent to the development of

each of the river basin reports

Conduct of this study relies heavily upon available information

Compilation and evaluation of existing data from many sources and

development of field survey information are the main contributions

to the new water resource data base represented by this study

Related Reports

Information pertaining to this navigability study for the Charleston

District has been compiled into a series of reports one of which is

represented by this document A complete listing of the reports is

presented below to facilitate cross referencing

Number Title

SUlTITIary Report

01 Coosawhatchie River Area

02 Combahee River Area

03 Edisto River Area

04 Cooper River Area

05 Santee River Bas in

) 06 Black River Area

07 Waccamaw River Basin

08 Congaree River Basin

09 Wateree River Basin

16-2

Number Ti tie

10 Lynches River Basin

11 Great Pee Dee River Basin

12 Little Pee Dee River Basin

13 Lumber River Bas in

14 Sa I uda River Basin

15 Broad River Basin

16 Catawba River Basin

17 Yadkin River Basin

18 Lakes - Greater Than 1000 Acres

Coasta I Supplement

The eighteen reports covering various drainage areas in the district

present information for the specific basins The Summary Report provides

an overview of the entire study of district waterbodies and presents

information applicable to all waters in the district Reference should

be made to both the individual drainage area reports as well as the

Summary Report to obtain a thorough understanding of the study approach

and results

Acknowledgements and Data Sources

The contribution of many project team members within the Corps of

Engineers Charleston District and Stanley Consultants Is gratefully

acknowledged by Stanley Consultants In addition to the legal search

and other evaluations and input from Charleston District staff several

others made significant contributions to this study effort Dr John W

Gordon Assistant Professor in the Department of History The Citadel

prepared the narrative and literature review Information for past and

present interstate commerce

Several state water resource transportation utility and planning

agencies also cooperated and provided useful data for compiling these

reports Federal water resource and regulatory agencies and private) utilities provided Information along with public and private operators

of large reservoirs

16-3

Specific numbered data sources are referenced in the reports in

parentheses These data sources are listed in the Bibliography of

each report of the navigat ion study

)

16-4

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As shown on Plate 16-1 the Catawba River basin is located in

the north central portion of South Carolina and the southwestern

portion of North Carolina and comprises part of the Santee-Cooper

River system The headwaters of the basin are located in the Blue

Ridge Mountains The river flows east for 90 miles then turns south

for 130 miles where It originally joined with Big Wateree Creek to

form the Wateree River at river mile (RM) 920 (river miles in the

Catawba basin have been continued from the Wateree River river miles

noted - 110 - mileage at start of Catawba) However in the early

1900s a series of dams including Wateree Lake Dam Great Falls Dam

Dearborn Dam and Fishing Creek Dam were constructed below this conshy

fluence (Wateree Lake Dam is the first one at RM 76 I) and continuing

to approximately RH 110 As a result the reservoir pools ran toshy

gether inundating the original mouth of the Catawba River and displacing

for all practical purposes the mouth of the Catawba River to the

upstream end of Fishing Creek Reservoir at approximately RH 10

Additional information on the dams and lakes as well as the Santee

Cooper and Wateree Rivers is presented in Reports 18 05 04 and 09

respectively

The Catawba River is the largest river in the basin There are

no major tributaries in the basin The river flows the length of the

basin changing from a small mountain stream In the upper reaches to

a wide uniformly channeled river in the lower reaches However many

large dams regulate flow on the river consequently changing channel

depth embankment height and vegetation levels on a dally basis and

distorting to some degree the general characteristics of the river

The dams are located at intervals along the river and are

primarily used for power generation and flood control The larger

dams are identified below (Report 18 provides additional Information

) on these) Wateree Lake Dam (18-06) Fishing Creek Dam (18-08) Lake

Wyl ie (Lake Catawba) Dam (18-11) Mountain Island Lake Dam (18-12)

16-5

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

bullbullbullbullbull

CONTENTS

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION 16-1

Purpose bull bull bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbull bull bullbullbull 16-1 Scope bull 0 bullbullbullbullbull 16-1bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0

Related Reports bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-2 Acknowledgements and Data Sources bullbullbullbullbull 16-3

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERiSTICS 16-5

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS bull bull bull bullbull 16-8

Federal Navigation Projects tP-B Other Navigation Projects bull bullbull bullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbull bull 0 16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-9

Past 16-9 Present bull bull bull bull bullbull bull bull bull 16-12 Future Potential bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbull bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull bullbullbullbull bullbull bull 16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITy bull bullbull bull bullbull 16-13

General bullbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bullbull bullbull bull 16-13 Navigabil ity Inte rpretations bull bullbullbull bull bull bull bull bull 16-13 Ge ne ra 1 Federa 1 Court Cases bullbull bullbullbullbull bull bull 16-14 Spec if ic Federa l Court Cases bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-16 South Carol ina State Court Cases bullbullbull bull bull bullbullbullbull bullbull 16-18 No rth Carolina State Court Cases 16-21 Recent Federal Li tigation bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-21 Federal Agency Jurisdiction bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-21

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS bull 16-24

Navigation Classification Procedu res bullbullbull bullbullbull 16-24 Navigation Classifica ti o n Categories bullbullbull 16-28 Present Navigable Waters of the U Sbull bull bull bull 16-28 Historically Navigable Wate r s 16-28 Recorrmended Navigable Wa te rs of the U S bullbull bull bullbull 16-29 Recorrrnended Practical Navigable Waters of the U Sbullbullbull 16-29 Waters of the U Sbullbullbull bull bull bull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull bullbull bull bull 16-29 SECT ION 7 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS bullbullbullbullbullbullbull 16-30

16-i

CONTENTS (continued)

) BIBLI OGRAPHY 16-31

APPENDIX A STREAM CATALOG bullbull bullbullbullbullbull 16-AI

APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES 16-BI

Cited References 16-31 Other Background Information bullbull bullbullbull 16-33

TABLES

Number Page

Physical Characteristics 16-6

2 Key Stream Gaging Stations 16-7

FIGURES

Number Page

Navigability Decision Diagram 16-25

PLATES

Number Follows Page

16-1 Location Map bullbull bull 16-33

16-2 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-3 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-4 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-5 Significant Features middot 16- 33

16-i i

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

J

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to collect develop and evaluate

information on waterbodies within the boundaries of the Charleston

District Corps of Engineers for establishing the classification of

navigable waters of the U S1I and lwaters of the U SH (During the

course of this study the term navigable waters was changed to IIwaters

5 11of the U Herein references to IInavigabJe waters are synonymous

with lwaters of the U S) Study objectives include definition of the

present head of navigation the historic head of navigation the potential

head of navigation and the headwaters of all waterbodles within the

district

The information generated as a part of the study will be utilized

by the Charleston District in administration of its programs dealing

with water resource project construction permits in navigable waters of

the U 5 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) and the deposition of dredge

or fi II material in navigable waters or thei r contiguous wetlands

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

Scope

The scope of this project is generally summarized by the following

1 Outline drainage areas locate headwater points where mean

flow is five cubic feet per second (cfs) summarize lake data

(10 to 1000 acres) establish stream mileage for navigable

waters of the U 5 and prepare a stream catalog sumnary for

the district

2 Conduct field surveys of waterbodies to establish mean water

levels and obstruction clearances for evaluating the potential

head of navigation

3 Analyze available hydrological data to estimate mean maximum

and minimum discharge rates at obstructions and other selected

locations

4 Conduct a 1iterature review to identify past present and

future uses of waterbodies for interstate commerce

16-1

s Conduct a legal search to identify Federal and state court

cases which impact on navigation classifications

6 Prepare plan and profile drawings maps of the district

showing significant physical features and a map delineating

the recommended navigation classifications

7 Prepare reports on all major river basins and large lakes

ltgreater than 1000 acres) including information on physical

characteristics navigation projects interstate commerce

court decisions navigation obstructions and recommended

classification of waterbodies for navigation

8 Prepare a summary report outlining navigation-related inforshy

mation for the entire district as well as the methodology

procedures and other factors pertinent to the development of

each of the river basin reports

Conduct of this study relies heavily upon available information

Compilation and evaluation of existing data from many sources and

development of field survey information are the main contributions

to the new water resource data base represented by this study

Related Reports

Information pertaining to this navigability study for the Charleston

District has been compiled into a series of reports one of which is

represented by this document A complete listing of the reports is

presented below to facilitate cross referencing

Number Title

SUlTITIary Report

01 Coosawhatchie River Area

02 Combahee River Area

03 Edisto River Area

04 Cooper River Area

05 Santee River Bas in

) 06 Black River Area

07 Waccamaw River Basin

08 Congaree River Basin

09 Wateree River Basin

16-2

Number Ti tie

10 Lynches River Basin

11 Great Pee Dee River Basin

12 Little Pee Dee River Basin

13 Lumber River Bas in

14 Sa I uda River Basin

15 Broad River Basin

16 Catawba River Basin

17 Yadkin River Basin

18 Lakes - Greater Than 1000 Acres

Coasta I Supplement

The eighteen reports covering various drainage areas in the district

present information for the specific basins The Summary Report provides

an overview of the entire study of district waterbodies and presents

information applicable to all waters in the district Reference should

be made to both the individual drainage area reports as well as the

Summary Report to obtain a thorough understanding of the study approach

and results

Acknowledgements and Data Sources

The contribution of many project team members within the Corps of

Engineers Charleston District and Stanley Consultants Is gratefully

acknowledged by Stanley Consultants In addition to the legal search

and other evaluations and input from Charleston District staff several

others made significant contributions to this study effort Dr John W

Gordon Assistant Professor in the Department of History The Citadel

prepared the narrative and literature review Information for past and

present interstate commerce

Several state water resource transportation utility and planning

agencies also cooperated and provided useful data for compiling these

reports Federal water resource and regulatory agencies and private) utilities provided Information along with public and private operators

of large reservoirs

16-3

Specific numbered data sources are referenced in the reports in

parentheses These data sources are listed in the Bibliography of

each report of the navigat ion study

)

16-4

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As shown on Plate 16-1 the Catawba River basin is located in

the north central portion of South Carolina and the southwestern

portion of North Carolina and comprises part of the Santee-Cooper

River system The headwaters of the basin are located in the Blue

Ridge Mountains The river flows east for 90 miles then turns south

for 130 miles where It originally joined with Big Wateree Creek to

form the Wateree River at river mile (RM) 920 (river miles in the

Catawba basin have been continued from the Wateree River river miles

noted - 110 - mileage at start of Catawba) However in the early

1900s a series of dams including Wateree Lake Dam Great Falls Dam

Dearborn Dam and Fishing Creek Dam were constructed below this conshy

fluence (Wateree Lake Dam is the first one at RM 76 I) and continuing

to approximately RH 110 As a result the reservoir pools ran toshy

gether inundating the original mouth of the Catawba River and displacing

for all practical purposes the mouth of the Catawba River to the

upstream end of Fishing Creek Reservoir at approximately RH 10

Additional information on the dams and lakes as well as the Santee

Cooper and Wateree Rivers is presented in Reports 18 05 04 and 09

respectively

The Catawba River is the largest river in the basin There are

no major tributaries in the basin The river flows the length of the

basin changing from a small mountain stream In the upper reaches to

a wide uniformly channeled river in the lower reaches However many

large dams regulate flow on the river consequently changing channel

depth embankment height and vegetation levels on a dally basis and

distorting to some degree the general characteristics of the river

The dams are located at intervals along the river and are

primarily used for power generation and flood control The larger

dams are identified below (Report 18 provides additional Information

) on these) Wateree Lake Dam (18-06) Fishing Creek Dam (18-08) Lake

Wyl ie (Lake Catawba) Dam (18-11) Mountain Island Lake Dam (18-12)

16-5

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

CONTENTS (continued)

) BIBLI OGRAPHY 16-31

APPENDIX A STREAM CATALOG bullbull bullbullbullbullbull 16-AI

APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES 16-BI

Cited References 16-31 Other Background Information bullbull bullbullbull 16-33

TABLES

Number Page

Physical Characteristics 16-6

2 Key Stream Gaging Stations 16-7

FIGURES

Number Page

Navigability Decision Diagram 16-25

PLATES

Number Follows Page

16-1 Location Map bullbull bull 16-33

16-2 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-3 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-4 Significant Features middot 16-33

16-5 Significant Features middot 16- 33

16-i i

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

J

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to collect develop and evaluate

information on waterbodies within the boundaries of the Charleston

District Corps of Engineers for establishing the classification of

navigable waters of the U S1I and lwaters of the U SH (During the

course of this study the term navigable waters was changed to IIwaters

5 11of the U Herein references to IInavigabJe waters are synonymous

with lwaters of the U S) Study objectives include definition of the

present head of navigation the historic head of navigation the potential

head of navigation and the headwaters of all waterbodles within the

district

The information generated as a part of the study will be utilized

by the Charleston District in administration of its programs dealing

with water resource project construction permits in navigable waters of

the U 5 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) and the deposition of dredge

or fi II material in navigable waters or thei r contiguous wetlands

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

Scope

The scope of this project is generally summarized by the following

1 Outline drainage areas locate headwater points where mean

flow is five cubic feet per second (cfs) summarize lake data

(10 to 1000 acres) establish stream mileage for navigable

waters of the U 5 and prepare a stream catalog sumnary for

the district

2 Conduct field surveys of waterbodies to establish mean water

levels and obstruction clearances for evaluating the potential

head of navigation

3 Analyze available hydrological data to estimate mean maximum

and minimum discharge rates at obstructions and other selected

locations

4 Conduct a 1iterature review to identify past present and

future uses of waterbodies for interstate commerce

16-1

s Conduct a legal search to identify Federal and state court

cases which impact on navigation classifications

6 Prepare plan and profile drawings maps of the district

showing significant physical features and a map delineating

the recommended navigation classifications

7 Prepare reports on all major river basins and large lakes

ltgreater than 1000 acres) including information on physical

characteristics navigation projects interstate commerce

court decisions navigation obstructions and recommended

classification of waterbodies for navigation

8 Prepare a summary report outlining navigation-related inforshy

mation for the entire district as well as the methodology

procedures and other factors pertinent to the development of

each of the river basin reports

Conduct of this study relies heavily upon available information

Compilation and evaluation of existing data from many sources and

development of field survey information are the main contributions

to the new water resource data base represented by this study

Related Reports

Information pertaining to this navigability study for the Charleston

District has been compiled into a series of reports one of which is

represented by this document A complete listing of the reports is

presented below to facilitate cross referencing

Number Title

SUlTITIary Report

01 Coosawhatchie River Area

02 Combahee River Area

03 Edisto River Area

04 Cooper River Area

05 Santee River Bas in

) 06 Black River Area

07 Waccamaw River Basin

08 Congaree River Basin

09 Wateree River Basin

16-2

Number Ti tie

10 Lynches River Basin

11 Great Pee Dee River Basin

12 Little Pee Dee River Basin

13 Lumber River Bas in

14 Sa I uda River Basin

15 Broad River Basin

16 Catawba River Basin

17 Yadkin River Basin

18 Lakes - Greater Than 1000 Acres

Coasta I Supplement

The eighteen reports covering various drainage areas in the district

present information for the specific basins The Summary Report provides

an overview of the entire study of district waterbodies and presents

information applicable to all waters in the district Reference should

be made to both the individual drainage area reports as well as the

Summary Report to obtain a thorough understanding of the study approach

and results

Acknowledgements and Data Sources

The contribution of many project team members within the Corps of

Engineers Charleston District and Stanley Consultants Is gratefully

acknowledged by Stanley Consultants In addition to the legal search

and other evaluations and input from Charleston District staff several

others made significant contributions to this study effort Dr John W

Gordon Assistant Professor in the Department of History The Citadel

prepared the narrative and literature review Information for past and

present interstate commerce

Several state water resource transportation utility and planning

agencies also cooperated and provided useful data for compiling these

reports Federal water resource and regulatory agencies and private) utilities provided Information along with public and private operators

of large reservoirs

16-3

Specific numbered data sources are referenced in the reports in

parentheses These data sources are listed in the Bibliography of

each report of the navigat ion study

)

16-4

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As shown on Plate 16-1 the Catawba River basin is located in

the north central portion of South Carolina and the southwestern

portion of North Carolina and comprises part of the Santee-Cooper

River system The headwaters of the basin are located in the Blue

Ridge Mountains The river flows east for 90 miles then turns south

for 130 miles where It originally joined with Big Wateree Creek to

form the Wateree River at river mile (RM) 920 (river miles in the

Catawba basin have been continued from the Wateree River river miles

noted - 110 - mileage at start of Catawba) However in the early

1900s a series of dams including Wateree Lake Dam Great Falls Dam

Dearborn Dam and Fishing Creek Dam were constructed below this conshy

fluence (Wateree Lake Dam is the first one at RM 76 I) and continuing

to approximately RH 110 As a result the reservoir pools ran toshy

gether inundating the original mouth of the Catawba River and displacing

for all practical purposes the mouth of the Catawba River to the

upstream end of Fishing Creek Reservoir at approximately RH 10

Additional information on the dams and lakes as well as the Santee

Cooper and Wateree Rivers is presented in Reports 18 05 04 and 09

respectively

The Catawba River is the largest river in the basin There are

no major tributaries in the basin The river flows the length of the

basin changing from a small mountain stream In the upper reaches to

a wide uniformly channeled river in the lower reaches However many

large dams regulate flow on the river consequently changing channel

depth embankment height and vegetation levels on a dally basis and

distorting to some degree the general characteristics of the river

The dams are located at intervals along the river and are

primarily used for power generation and flood control The larger

dams are identified below (Report 18 provides additional Information

) on these) Wateree Lake Dam (18-06) Fishing Creek Dam (18-08) Lake

Wyl ie (Lake Catawba) Dam (18-11) Mountain Island Lake Dam (18-12)

16-5

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

J

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to collect develop and evaluate

information on waterbodies within the boundaries of the Charleston

District Corps of Engineers for establishing the classification of

navigable waters of the U S1I and lwaters of the U SH (During the

course of this study the term navigable waters was changed to IIwaters

5 11of the U Herein references to IInavigabJe waters are synonymous

with lwaters of the U S) Study objectives include definition of the

present head of navigation the historic head of navigation the potential

head of navigation and the headwaters of all waterbodles within the

district

The information generated as a part of the study will be utilized

by the Charleston District in administration of its programs dealing

with water resource project construction permits in navigable waters of

the U 5 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) and the deposition of dredge

or fi II material in navigable waters or thei r contiguous wetlands

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

Scope

The scope of this project is generally summarized by the following

1 Outline drainage areas locate headwater points where mean

flow is five cubic feet per second (cfs) summarize lake data

(10 to 1000 acres) establish stream mileage for navigable

waters of the U 5 and prepare a stream catalog sumnary for

the district

2 Conduct field surveys of waterbodies to establish mean water

levels and obstruction clearances for evaluating the potential

head of navigation

3 Analyze available hydrological data to estimate mean maximum

and minimum discharge rates at obstructions and other selected

locations

4 Conduct a 1iterature review to identify past present and

future uses of waterbodies for interstate commerce

16-1

s Conduct a legal search to identify Federal and state court

cases which impact on navigation classifications

6 Prepare plan and profile drawings maps of the district

showing significant physical features and a map delineating

the recommended navigation classifications

7 Prepare reports on all major river basins and large lakes

ltgreater than 1000 acres) including information on physical

characteristics navigation projects interstate commerce

court decisions navigation obstructions and recommended

classification of waterbodies for navigation

8 Prepare a summary report outlining navigation-related inforshy

mation for the entire district as well as the methodology

procedures and other factors pertinent to the development of

each of the river basin reports

Conduct of this study relies heavily upon available information

Compilation and evaluation of existing data from many sources and

development of field survey information are the main contributions

to the new water resource data base represented by this study

Related Reports

Information pertaining to this navigability study for the Charleston

District has been compiled into a series of reports one of which is

represented by this document A complete listing of the reports is

presented below to facilitate cross referencing

Number Title

SUlTITIary Report

01 Coosawhatchie River Area

02 Combahee River Area

03 Edisto River Area

04 Cooper River Area

05 Santee River Bas in

) 06 Black River Area

07 Waccamaw River Basin

08 Congaree River Basin

09 Wateree River Basin

16-2

Number Ti tie

10 Lynches River Basin

11 Great Pee Dee River Basin

12 Little Pee Dee River Basin

13 Lumber River Bas in

14 Sa I uda River Basin

15 Broad River Basin

16 Catawba River Basin

17 Yadkin River Basin

18 Lakes - Greater Than 1000 Acres

Coasta I Supplement

The eighteen reports covering various drainage areas in the district

present information for the specific basins The Summary Report provides

an overview of the entire study of district waterbodies and presents

information applicable to all waters in the district Reference should

be made to both the individual drainage area reports as well as the

Summary Report to obtain a thorough understanding of the study approach

and results

Acknowledgements and Data Sources

The contribution of many project team members within the Corps of

Engineers Charleston District and Stanley Consultants Is gratefully

acknowledged by Stanley Consultants In addition to the legal search

and other evaluations and input from Charleston District staff several

others made significant contributions to this study effort Dr John W

Gordon Assistant Professor in the Department of History The Citadel

prepared the narrative and literature review Information for past and

present interstate commerce

Several state water resource transportation utility and planning

agencies also cooperated and provided useful data for compiling these

reports Federal water resource and regulatory agencies and private) utilities provided Information along with public and private operators

of large reservoirs

16-3

Specific numbered data sources are referenced in the reports in

parentheses These data sources are listed in the Bibliography of

each report of the navigat ion study

)

16-4

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As shown on Plate 16-1 the Catawba River basin is located in

the north central portion of South Carolina and the southwestern

portion of North Carolina and comprises part of the Santee-Cooper

River system The headwaters of the basin are located in the Blue

Ridge Mountains The river flows east for 90 miles then turns south

for 130 miles where It originally joined with Big Wateree Creek to

form the Wateree River at river mile (RM) 920 (river miles in the

Catawba basin have been continued from the Wateree River river miles

noted - 110 - mileage at start of Catawba) However in the early

1900s a series of dams including Wateree Lake Dam Great Falls Dam

Dearborn Dam and Fishing Creek Dam were constructed below this conshy

fluence (Wateree Lake Dam is the first one at RM 76 I) and continuing

to approximately RH 110 As a result the reservoir pools ran toshy

gether inundating the original mouth of the Catawba River and displacing

for all practical purposes the mouth of the Catawba River to the

upstream end of Fishing Creek Reservoir at approximately RH 10

Additional information on the dams and lakes as well as the Santee

Cooper and Wateree Rivers is presented in Reports 18 05 04 and 09

respectively

The Catawba River is the largest river in the basin There are

no major tributaries in the basin The river flows the length of the

basin changing from a small mountain stream In the upper reaches to

a wide uniformly channeled river in the lower reaches However many

large dams regulate flow on the river consequently changing channel

depth embankment height and vegetation levels on a dally basis and

distorting to some degree the general characteristics of the river

The dams are located at intervals along the river and are

primarily used for power generation and flood control The larger

dams are identified below (Report 18 provides additional Information

) on these) Wateree Lake Dam (18-06) Fishing Creek Dam (18-08) Lake

Wyl ie (Lake Catawba) Dam (18-11) Mountain Island Lake Dam (18-12)

16-5

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

s Conduct a legal search to identify Federal and state court

cases which impact on navigation classifications

6 Prepare plan and profile drawings maps of the district

showing significant physical features and a map delineating

the recommended navigation classifications

7 Prepare reports on all major river basins and large lakes

ltgreater than 1000 acres) including information on physical

characteristics navigation projects interstate commerce

court decisions navigation obstructions and recommended

classification of waterbodies for navigation

8 Prepare a summary report outlining navigation-related inforshy

mation for the entire district as well as the methodology

procedures and other factors pertinent to the development of

each of the river basin reports

Conduct of this study relies heavily upon available information

Compilation and evaluation of existing data from many sources and

development of field survey information are the main contributions

to the new water resource data base represented by this study

Related Reports

Information pertaining to this navigability study for the Charleston

District has been compiled into a series of reports one of which is

represented by this document A complete listing of the reports is

presented below to facilitate cross referencing

Number Title

SUlTITIary Report

01 Coosawhatchie River Area

02 Combahee River Area

03 Edisto River Area

04 Cooper River Area

05 Santee River Bas in

) 06 Black River Area

07 Waccamaw River Basin

08 Congaree River Basin

09 Wateree River Basin

16-2

Number Ti tie

10 Lynches River Basin

11 Great Pee Dee River Basin

12 Little Pee Dee River Basin

13 Lumber River Bas in

14 Sa I uda River Basin

15 Broad River Basin

16 Catawba River Basin

17 Yadkin River Basin

18 Lakes - Greater Than 1000 Acres

Coasta I Supplement

The eighteen reports covering various drainage areas in the district

present information for the specific basins The Summary Report provides

an overview of the entire study of district waterbodies and presents

information applicable to all waters in the district Reference should

be made to both the individual drainage area reports as well as the

Summary Report to obtain a thorough understanding of the study approach

and results

Acknowledgements and Data Sources

The contribution of many project team members within the Corps of

Engineers Charleston District and Stanley Consultants Is gratefully

acknowledged by Stanley Consultants In addition to the legal search

and other evaluations and input from Charleston District staff several

others made significant contributions to this study effort Dr John W

Gordon Assistant Professor in the Department of History The Citadel

prepared the narrative and literature review Information for past and

present interstate commerce

Several state water resource transportation utility and planning

agencies also cooperated and provided useful data for compiling these

reports Federal water resource and regulatory agencies and private) utilities provided Information along with public and private operators

of large reservoirs

16-3

Specific numbered data sources are referenced in the reports in

parentheses These data sources are listed in the Bibliography of

each report of the navigat ion study

)

16-4

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As shown on Plate 16-1 the Catawba River basin is located in

the north central portion of South Carolina and the southwestern

portion of North Carolina and comprises part of the Santee-Cooper

River system The headwaters of the basin are located in the Blue

Ridge Mountains The river flows east for 90 miles then turns south

for 130 miles where It originally joined with Big Wateree Creek to

form the Wateree River at river mile (RM) 920 (river miles in the

Catawba basin have been continued from the Wateree River river miles

noted - 110 - mileage at start of Catawba) However in the early

1900s a series of dams including Wateree Lake Dam Great Falls Dam

Dearborn Dam and Fishing Creek Dam were constructed below this conshy

fluence (Wateree Lake Dam is the first one at RM 76 I) and continuing

to approximately RH 110 As a result the reservoir pools ran toshy

gether inundating the original mouth of the Catawba River and displacing

for all practical purposes the mouth of the Catawba River to the

upstream end of Fishing Creek Reservoir at approximately RH 10

Additional information on the dams and lakes as well as the Santee

Cooper and Wateree Rivers is presented in Reports 18 05 04 and 09

respectively

The Catawba River is the largest river in the basin There are

no major tributaries in the basin The river flows the length of the

basin changing from a small mountain stream In the upper reaches to

a wide uniformly channeled river in the lower reaches However many

large dams regulate flow on the river consequently changing channel

depth embankment height and vegetation levels on a dally basis and

distorting to some degree the general characteristics of the river

The dams are located at intervals along the river and are

primarily used for power generation and flood control The larger

dams are identified below (Report 18 provides additional Information

) on these) Wateree Lake Dam (18-06) Fishing Creek Dam (18-08) Lake

Wyl ie (Lake Catawba) Dam (18-11) Mountain Island Lake Dam (18-12)

16-5

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

Number Ti tie

10 Lynches River Basin

11 Great Pee Dee River Basin

12 Little Pee Dee River Basin

13 Lumber River Bas in

14 Sa I uda River Basin

15 Broad River Basin

16 Catawba River Basin

17 Yadkin River Basin

18 Lakes - Greater Than 1000 Acres

Coasta I Supplement

The eighteen reports covering various drainage areas in the district

present information for the specific basins The Summary Report provides

an overview of the entire study of district waterbodies and presents

information applicable to all waters in the district Reference should

be made to both the individual drainage area reports as well as the

Summary Report to obtain a thorough understanding of the study approach

and results

Acknowledgements and Data Sources

The contribution of many project team members within the Corps of

Engineers Charleston District and Stanley Consultants Is gratefully

acknowledged by Stanley Consultants In addition to the legal search

and other evaluations and input from Charleston District staff several

others made significant contributions to this study effort Dr John W

Gordon Assistant Professor in the Department of History The Citadel

prepared the narrative and literature review Information for past and

present interstate commerce

Several state water resource transportation utility and planning

agencies also cooperated and provided useful data for compiling these

reports Federal water resource and regulatory agencies and private) utilities provided Information along with public and private operators

of large reservoirs

16-3

Specific numbered data sources are referenced in the reports in

parentheses These data sources are listed in the Bibliography of

each report of the navigat ion study

)

16-4

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As shown on Plate 16-1 the Catawba River basin is located in

the north central portion of South Carolina and the southwestern

portion of North Carolina and comprises part of the Santee-Cooper

River system The headwaters of the basin are located in the Blue

Ridge Mountains The river flows east for 90 miles then turns south

for 130 miles where It originally joined with Big Wateree Creek to

form the Wateree River at river mile (RM) 920 (river miles in the

Catawba basin have been continued from the Wateree River river miles

noted - 110 - mileage at start of Catawba) However in the early

1900s a series of dams including Wateree Lake Dam Great Falls Dam

Dearborn Dam and Fishing Creek Dam were constructed below this conshy

fluence (Wateree Lake Dam is the first one at RM 76 I) and continuing

to approximately RH 110 As a result the reservoir pools ran toshy

gether inundating the original mouth of the Catawba River and displacing

for all practical purposes the mouth of the Catawba River to the

upstream end of Fishing Creek Reservoir at approximately RH 10

Additional information on the dams and lakes as well as the Santee

Cooper and Wateree Rivers is presented in Reports 18 05 04 and 09

respectively

The Catawba River is the largest river in the basin There are

no major tributaries in the basin The river flows the length of the

basin changing from a small mountain stream In the upper reaches to

a wide uniformly channeled river in the lower reaches However many

large dams regulate flow on the river consequently changing channel

depth embankment height and vegetation levels on a dally basis and

distorting to some degree the general characteristics of the river

The dams are located at intervals along the river and are

primarily used for power generation and flood control The larger

dams are identified below (Report 18 provides additional Information

) on these) Wateree Lake Dam (18-06) Fishing Creek Dam (18-08) Lake

Wyl ie (Lake Catawba) Dam (18-11) Mountain Island Lake Dam (18-12)

16-5

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

Specific numbered data sources are referenced in the reports in

parentheses These data sources are listed in the Bibliography of

each report of the navigat ion study

)

16-4

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As shown on Plate 16-1 the Catawba River basin is located in

the north central portion of South Carolina and the southwestern

portion of North Carolina and comprises part of the Santee-Cooper

River system The headwaters of the basin are located in the Blue

Ridge Mountains The river flows east for 90 miles then turns south

for 130 miles where It originally joined with Big Wateree Creek to

form the Wateree River at river mile (RM) 920 (river miles in the

Catawba basin have been continued from the Wateree River river miles

noted - 110 - mileage at start of Catawba) However in the early

1900s a series of dams including Wateree Lake Dam Great Falls Dam

Dearborn Dam and Fishing Creek Dam were constructed below this conshy

fluence (Wateree Lake Dam is the first one at RM 76 I) and continuing

to approximately RH 110 As a result the reservoir pools ran toshy

gether inundating the original mouth of the Catawba River and displacing

for all practical purposes the mouth of the Catawba River to the

upstream end of Fishing Creek Reservoir at approximately RH 10

Additional information on the dams and lakes as well as the Santee

Cooper and Wateree Rivers is presented in Reports 18 05 04 and 09

respectively

The Catawba River is the largest river in the basin There are

no major tributaries in the basin The river flows the length of the

basin changing from a small mountain stream In the upper reaches to

a wide uniformly channeled river in the lower reaches However many

large dams regulate flow on the river consequently changing channel

depth embankment height and vegetation levels on a dally basis and

distorting to some degree the general characteristics of the river

The dams are located at intervals along the river and are

primarily used for power generation and flood control The larger

dams are identified below (Report 18 provides additional Information

) on these) Wateree Lake Dam (18-06) Fishing Creek Dam (18-08) Lake

Wyl ie (Lake Catawba) Dam (18-11) Mountain Island Lake Dam (18-12)

16-5

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

SECTION 2 - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As shown on Plate 16-1 the Catawba River basin is located in

the north central portion of South Carolina and the southwestern

portion of North Carolina and comprises part of the Santee-Cooper

River system The headwaters of the basin are located in the Blue

Ridge Mountains The river flows east for 90 miles then turns south

for 130 miles where It originally joined with Big Wateree Creek to

form the Wateree River at river mile (RM) 920 (river miles in the

Catawba basin have been continued from the Wateree River river miles

noted - 110 - mileage at start of Catawba) However in the early

1900s a series of dams including Wateree Lake Dam Great Falls Dam

Dearborn Dam and Fishing Creek Dam were constructed below this conshy

fluence (Wateree Lake Dam is the first one at RM 76 I) and continuing

to approximately RH 110 As a result the reservoir pools ran toshy

gether inundating the original mouth of the Catawba River and displacing

for all practical purposes the mouth of the Catawba River to the

upstream end of Fishing Creek Reservoir at approximately RH 10

Additional information on the dams and lakes as well as the Santee

Cooper and Wateree Rivers is presented in Reports 18 05 04 and 09

respectively

The Catawba River is the largest river in the basin There are

no major tributaries in the basin The river flows the length of the

basin changing from a small mountain stream In the upper reaches to

a wide uniformly channeled river in the lower reaches However many

large dams regulate flow on the river consequently changing channel

depth embankment height and vegetation levels on a dally basis and

distorting to some degree the general characteristics of the river

The dams are located at intervals along the river and are

primarily used for power generation and flood control The larger

dams are identified below (Report 18 provides additional Information

) on these) Wateree Lake Dam (18-06) Fishing Creek Dam (18-08) Lake

Wyl ie (Lake Catawba) Dam (18-11) Mountain Island Lake Dam (18-12)

16-5

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

Lake Norman Dam (18-19) Lookout Shoals Lake Dam (18-21) Lake

Hickory Dam (18-22) Rhodhiss Lake Dam (18-23) and Lake James Dam

(18-24) (I) (2)

Plates 16-2 through 16-5 are detailed maps indicating significant

features in the basin Table I further describes selected physical

characteristics such as approximate drainage area length and elevation

change for the Catawba River The methodology used in developing many

of these characteristics is defined in the Summary Report Table 2

presents information on the USGS gaging stations located along the

Ca tawba River

TABLE I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (3)(4)(5)(6)

Length to Headwaters l ) 202 mi les

Elevation Change to Headwaters l ) 1470 feet

Drainage Area of Basin 3780 square miles

Mean Discharge at Mouth 6680 cf (RM 110)

Limit of Tidal Influence None

Length of Present 2) 535 miles ) Navigable Waters of the US (RM 110 to 1635)3

I) From end of Fishing Creek Reservoir to headwaters (point where mean annual flow is 5 cfs) of Catawba River

2) Classification of RM 00 to RM 110 presented In Reports 09 and 18

3) River mileage on the Catawba River has been continued from the Wateree River (river miles presented - 110 - mileage from start of Ca tawba)

J See Bibliography for these references

16-6

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

TABLE 2

KEY STREAM GAGING STATIONS (3) (5) (ll (8)

USGS Gaging Ora i nage Hean Hinimur Maximum Stream Station Number Locat ion Description Area Flow Flow Flow2)

(sqmi) lc1S) (ds) (ds)

Catawba Ri ver 02138000 located near Harion 171 340 105 560 NC McDowell Co on U S Highway 221 bridge 02 miles downshystream from Tom Creek

Catawba River 02146000 Located near Rockhill 3050 4559 1000 8200 S C York Co on U S Highway 21 bridge 35 miles downstream from Lake Wylie Dam

bull ~ Catawba River 021470003) Located near Catawba 3530 6242 NA NA

S C York Co on SCL RR bridge 200 feet downshystream from Twelve Hi Ie Creek

I) Exceeded or equaled 90 percent of the time

2) Exceeded or equaled 10 percent of the time

3) Period of record 1968 - current

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

SECTION 3 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Federal Navigation Projects

No Federal navigation projects have been authorized for the

Catawba River basin (9)( 10)

Other Navigation Projects

No mode rn-day navigation improvement projects have been identified

in the basin As discussed in Section 4 seve ral legislative efforts

were directed toward the Catawba River in the late 1700s by the state

of South Carolina however evidence of any improvements has ceased

to exi st

Inquiries made at various state and Federal agencies indicate

no projects are now planned or under construction which would Improve

or substantially benefit navigation on the Catawba River

)

16-8

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

SECTION 4 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Past

One of the first white men to visit the Catawba River basin was

the Eng ishman John Lawson who traveled the region in 1700 However

a Pennsylvanian named John Lederer may have seen the region some thirty

years previously and various Spanish expeditions may also have penetrated

to the Catawba even before that (11) The Charleston-based Carol ina

traders lost no time In establishing cOlTlTlercial ties with the several

tribes who lived along the banks of the Catawba As with other regions

of North and South Carolina various groups of European settlers

principally English and Scotch-Irish arrived in the Catawba basin in

the early and mid-18th Century to establish permanent homes

These settlers could not have enjoyed a free uninterrupted use

of the Catawba to move surplus crops down to the coast both the Catawba

and its lower stretch the Wateree were blocked at several points by

rock ledges which prevented uninterrupted navigation One historical

source is sure that the products which were moved out of the region

and sent to Charleston went by wagon not by water (12) Not until

1787 did the General Assembly of South Carolina move to open the navishy

gation of the Catawba River by establishing a company for that purpose (13)

While other rivers received more attention and funds from the state of

South Carolina it was hoped that the Catawba project would nonetheless

prove successful In 1788 North Carolina also moved by passing An

Act to establish a company for opening the Navigation of the Catawba

Rivers from the South Carolina I ine (approxima tely RM 154) lias far

up both branches of the Catawba Rivers as may be found practicable

by means of canals dams and locks (14) Eight yea rs later the

North Carol ina General Assembly repealed its 1788 act because lithe

Company had fai led to 1ive up to the terms of the act having removed

no obstructions and constructed no dams locks canals or done anything

to make the Catawba navigable (IS)

Such failure notwithstanding in 1801 North Carolina passed still

another tlAct to improve the Navigation of the Catawba River from the

16-9

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

South Carol ina I ine as far up as the same may be practlcable (16)

This new company so vested and styled the IlNorth Carol ina Catawba

CompanylI could announce by 1808 that it had IIfully complied with the

regulations of the act and had made considerable progress IIln

rendering said river navigable II (17) Still other acts for navigational

Improvement followed in 1816 and in 1849 (18) Nearly fifty years later

an act of 1897 sought lito keep the Catawba River open as a highway for

floatage and noted that certain portions of the Catawba River and

Johns River are floatable streams and navigable highways for the purpose

of floatage (l9)

These various acts indicate the efforts of both Carolinas to create

a system of inland navigation a project which enjoyed its prosperity

in the first three decades of the 19th Century Ulrich B Phillips

a historian noted in 1824 that some $1780 was spent on the Catawba

Canal (20) Yet the job of making the Catawba a navigable stream could

not have been an easy one When South Carolinas Civil and Military

Engineer John Wilson examined the stream in 1818 he noted that

liThe navigation of the Catawba River above Wateree Creek Is obstructed

by rapids and falls and will require extensive works to render it

navigable He also indicated that liThe importance of this river to

the trade of the interior wi II warrant any expenselI and tnat the IIstate

of North Carolina has improved the navigation above the boundary line

in the expectation that the works below the line would be carried on

with corresponding spirit (21)

In that corresponding spirit South Carolina completed in 1823

the Catawba Canal Whl Ie Ilboats carrying 40 bales of cottonll apparently

pi ied the river it was later reported that the Catawba Canal was

little used in consequence of the length of portage at Rocky Mount (22)

But by 1827 the South Carolina General Assemblys committee on internal

improvements could announce that the Catawba-Wateree River was navishy

gable Ilfrom Camden to the North Carolina Ilne (RM 154) (23) This stateshy

) ment may not have been completely in line with the facts soon the

legislature grew weary of expensive devices to effect a system of navishy

gation which in fact and all too often proved non-navigable Although

16-10

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

Robert Mills and other promoters of the inland navigation scheme had

believed that a navigable watercourse could be made of the Catawba

all the way from Morganton N C (RM 257) down to Charleston S C

lithe great trade predicted [had] fai led to developo (24)

By 1836 the various canals on the Catawba were In poor condition

and navigation may have ceased by about 1840

S T Albert a Civil Engineer working for the U S Army Corps

of Engineers examined the Catawba thirty-five years later The act

of March 3 1875 had appropriated funds for Alberts examination He

reported that liThe natural obstructions of the river between Old Fort

and the [North Carolina-South Carolina] State line are so formidable

that it cannot be navigated in its present unimproved condltlon His

report further indicated that the Catawbas trade is consequently

nothing and any future trade which is contingent on its Improvement must

be confined to timber iron ore and agricultural products (25)

Writing in 1876 Albert was altogether pessimistic about the

rivers potential for improvement and was not even sure that the

Catawba could be adapted to log rafting and barges The IIResources

of tradelI he noted Hare undeveloped (26) Twelve years later these

views were echoed by Captain W H Bixby Corps of Engineers who

examined the Catawba River and submitted an unfavorable report on the

rivers potential development for navigation (27)

In various reports compiled around the end of the 19th Century

and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Catawba-Wateree

was viewed as being navigable as far up as Camden S C (28)

Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1953 contained no listing

of interstate commerce for the Catawba nor did the volume for the

year 1975

Commencing in the second decade of the 20th Century Duke Power

Company constructed a series of dams and lakes on the Catawba River

for the production of hydroelectric power These lakes included

) Lake All isons near Statesville N C and Lake Catawba and Lake

James built in 1919 Other lakes were Lookout Shoals constructed

16-11

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

in 1915 Mountain Island Lake built in 1923 and Lakes Hickory and

Rhodhiss built in 1928 and 1924 respectively (29)

Present )

The Catawba River is not currently being used for purposes of

waterborne interstate corrrnerce (30)

During the period 1823 to about 1838 the Catawba River seems to

have been navigable from Camden S C (on the Wateree) to Morganton

N C if the statements of some of the proponents of inland navigation

are to be believed The period when the Catawba River was navigable

was short -- the difficulty of keeping the canals and channels maintained

and the advent of railway transportation led to the eventual abandonshy

ment of the river as an artery for moving commodities

In 1965 the Catawba was described as follows tTrlb of Wateree

River Non-navigable OJ)

Future Potential

Comprehensive analysis of the regional economics (income education

employment community facilities transportation systems and similar

factors) which would indicate growth patterns and the services needed

to sustain various types of industrial and commercial activities is

beyond the scope of this study Thus the potential use of the Catawba

River and its tributaries for interstate commerce in future years is

difficult to predict

The river has the potential to be utilized for Interstate shipment

of goods since it flows through two states and is also connected with

the Santee-Cooper River system However future potential interstate

commerce is not anticipated to be significant due in part to heavy

dependence by industrial and commercial establ ishments on other forms

of transportation including the interstate highway system railroads

and air transport as well as physical limitations imposed by the

river channel and man-made structures crossing the river )

16-12

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

SECTION 5 - LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

) This section presents information pertaining to the legal aspects

of the navigability Investigation Such Federal and state court

decisions as apply to the specific basin reported on herein are out-

I ined The Summary Report presents more complete documentation and

references to the court cases dealing with navigation classifications

and legal jurisdiction

Navigability Interpretations

The term IInav I gab 1 e waters of the U S II is used to def i ne the scope

and extent of the regulatory powers of the Federal government Precise

definitions of navigable waters or navigability are ultimately

dependent on judicial interpretation and are not made conclusively

by administrative agencies

Definitions of lInavlgabilityll are used for a wide variety of

purposes and vary substantially between Federal and state courts

Primary emphasis must therefore be given to the tests of navigability

which are used by the Federal courts to delineate Federal powers

Statements made by state courts if in reference to state tests of

navigability are not authoritative for Federal purposes

Federal courts may recognize variations In definition of navimiddot

gability or its application where different Federal powers are under

consideration For Instance some tests of navigability may include

I Questions of title to beds underlying navigable waters

2 Admiralty jurisdiction

3 Federal regulatory powers

This study is concerned with Federal regulatory powers Unformiddot

tunately courts often fail to distinguish between the tests and instead

rel y on precedents which may be inappl icable Thus a finding that

waters are Inavigablell in a question dealing with land title may have aJ

somewha t different meaning than IInavigable waters of the U S1I which

pertains to Federal regulatory functions

16-13

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

)

In this study the term IInavigable waters of the US is used to

define the extent and scope of certain regulatory powers of the Federal

government (River and Harbor Act) this is distinguished from the term

Hnavigable waters which refers to other Federal regulatory powers

(Section 404 of PL 92-500)

5 11Administratively IInavigabJe waters of the U are determined

by the Chief of Engineers and they may include waters that have been

used in the past are now used or are susceptible to US8 as a means to

transport interstate commerce landward to their ordinary high water mark

and up to the head of navigation IINavlgable waters of the U SH are

also waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their

mean high water mark These waters are deemed subject to a Federal

5 11navigation servitudell The term navigable waters of the Ubull

defines the more restricted Jurisdiction which pertains to the River

and Harbor Acts -- particularly the one of 1899 which specifically

defined certain regulatory functions for the Corps of Engineers

In contrast the term navigable watersH defines the new broader

jurisdiction with respect to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 Accordingly navigable waters not

only include those waters subject to the navigation servitude but

adjacent or contiguous wetlands tributaries and other waters as more

fully defined In revised Corps of Engineers Regulations

Although this navigability study covers both navigable waters of the

5 11U and navigable watersH the analysis of Judicial Interpretation

5 11has only focused upon determining navigable waters of the U to the

head of navigation Due to common usages In court cases the terms

navigabil ity and navigable watersmiddot may herein appear Interchangeably

with the term navigable waters of the US However the surrmary of

court cases is directed at the Federal regulatory jurisdiction of the

River and Harbor Acts and not necessarily regulatory jurisdiction under

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

General Federal Court Cases

Powers of the Federal government over navigable waters stem from

the Corrmerce Clause of the U S Constitution (Art 1sect8) Pursuant

16-14

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

to its powers under the Commerce Clause Congress enacted the River

and Harbor Act of 1899 which particularly specifies regulatory powers

of the Federal government in navigable waters of the U SII

The well-established Federal test of navigability Is whether a body

of water is used or is capable of being used in conjunction with other

bodies of water to form a continuous highway upon which commerce with

other states or countries might be conducted

Several Federal court decisions make it clear that a waterway which

was navigable in its natural or improved state retains its character

as navigable in law even though It is not presently used for conmerce

The test of navigability is not whether the particular body of water

is in fact being used for any form of commerce but whether It has the

capacity for being used for some type of commerce Several cases subshy

stantiate this (see the Summary Report for details on the court decisions)

The ebb and flow of the tide is another test which remains a constant

rule of navigability in tidal areas even though it has sometimes been

disfavored as a test of Federal jurisdiction Several cases note that ebb

and flow should not be the sole criterion of navigability but that

extension of Federal jurisdiction into the major non-tidal Inland waters

is possible by an examination of the waters navigable character The

ebb and flow test however remains valid as a rule of navigability in

tidal areas it is merely no longer a restriction for non-tidal areas

For bays and estuaries this extends to the entire surface and bed of all

waterbodies subject to tidal action even though portions of the waterbody

may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals vegetation or other

barriers as long as such obstructions are seaward of the mean high tidal

water line Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered navigable

in law insofar as they are subject to Inundation by the mean high

waters The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high

tidal waters Navigable waters are considered navigable laterally over

the entire surface regardless of depth

Another factor relevant to navigability determinations Is land

title Whatever title a party may claim under state law the private

ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing on the existence or

16-15

I

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters of

the U S Ownership of a river or lake bed wi 11 vary according to

state law however the Supreme Court has consistently held that title

to the bottomlands is subordinate to the public right of navigation

Specific Federal Court Cases

Navigability in the sense of actual usability for navigation or

as a legal concept embracing both public and private interests is not

defined or determined by a precise formula which fits every type of

stream or body of water under all circumstances and at all times A

general definition or test which has been formulated for Federal purshy

poses is that rivers or other bodies of water are navigable when they

are used or are susceptible of being used in their ordinary condition

as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be

conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water

The question of navigability of water when asserted under the

Constitution of the US as is the case with navigable waters of the

US is necessarily a question of Federal law to be determined

according to the general rule recognized and applied in the Federal

courts

A review of legal documentation indicates two Federal court decisions

which apply to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6) These cases

are briefly summarized below

in Re Housers Petition - The cou rt found that the Catawba River

is not in any sense considered to be a navigable stream by any

authority of the Un i ted States above Catawba Dam (mi le 1385] bull (and

that) preferably a fair determination would be that it in no way is

considered as navigable other than below Camden South Carolina [mile

671 However the court fai led to apply the usual tests of navishy

gability set forth by the various Supreme Court decisions in reaching

this position Instead the courts basis for the holding was that

it is a human impossibility to presently traverse the waters in a boat)

bull 227 F Supp 81 (WONC 1964)

Below RM 76 I the Catawba River becomes the Wateree River

16-16

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

The legal and factual context in which this decision was entered

should also be noted The petitioner in this case sought to Invoke the

Admiralty jurisdiction so as to limit his potential liability with-respect to a boat accident his craft was involved In and which was the

subject of the lawsuit This invocation was dependent on a Judicial

determination that the waterway in question was a navlgable water of

the U S which determination was not forthcoming The question thus

presented is would a court confronted with the question of whether or

not the same area was a navlgable water of the U S in a case where

the United States was asserting regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to

the Commerce Clause be bound by the holding In this case It is

submitted that although the holding would be accorded great weight

the purposes embodied in the Admiralty Acts vis a vis those of 33 USC

403 are so manifestly disimilar that a court could feel justified in

handing down two rulings seemingly inconsistent which rulings would

have two different bases one stemming from admiralty jurisdiction

the other from the regulatory power of the United States pursuant to

the Commerce Clause

Additionally as a practical matter although the decision held

that the Catawba is not navigable above mile 1385 the facts of the

case concerned Lake Hickory which at mi Ie 222 is some 585 dver

miles above the furtherest limit of navigability as set out in the

1975 opinion by OCE

United States v Mecklenburg Abattoir and Locker Plant Inc shy

The U s District Court for the Western District of North Carolina the

same court which decided the Houser case supra held in this case that

the Catawba River is a navigable water of the U SI descending

to the Seall The basis for this holding was not set out inasmuch as

no formal opinion was entered only a Judgment and Commitment However

in I ight of the Houser Courts finding of non-navigability having been

based on a strictly factual examination of whether the river was then

) navigable in fact instead of the Supreme Courtls test of past present

or future possibility of navigability it is more than likely that the

bull (WONC 1975)

16-17

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

Mecklenburg Court took this opportunity to re-evaluate the Houser

decision at least insofar as regulatory jurisdiction is concerned

and employed in this re-evaluation the standard tests of navigability

that a water is a Itnavigable water of the U S if it was used in the

past is presently used or is susceptible to use in the future as an

instrument to transport interstate commerce Especially important is

the legal contest in which this case arose Unlike the Houser case

which concerned navigability for admiralty jurisdiction this case was

an action by the United States against the defendant for violation of

33 USC 407 and as such is directly concerned with navigability for

regulatory jurisdiction Consequently the Mecklenburg decision may

be interpreted as reversing the Houser case at least as to navigabil ity

for regulatory jurisdiction and is thus consonant with the 1975 opinion

by aCE which states that the Catawba River is a navigable water of the

U S from mile 1635 to the sea

South Carolina State Court Cases

The current South Carolina legislative enactment defining navishy

gability and requiring freedom from obstruction may be found in

Section 70-1 of the South Carolina Code of laws This Section essenshy

tially provides that all streams which can float rafts of lumber or

timber are considered navigable by state law

Many of the South Carolina state cases reported are primarily

concerned with state ownership questions While the majority of states

actually own their streams and exercise control over their navigable

waters the ultimate authority has been granted to the Federal governshy

ment by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution The general rule

then is that the states both own and control the navigable streams

within their borders subject to exercise of the superior right of

control by the U S Although case histories show that state and Federal

concepts of navigability do not always agree when Federal interests

are at stake the Federal test will govern J

16-18

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

There a re exceptions however to the overwhelming majority rule

of state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters and South Carol ina

is in the minority In the minority states it was considered that

) property rights were vested at the time of Independence from England

and that the state took title only to tidal-navigable streams while

riparian owners took title to all stream beds both navigable and nonshy

navigable if non-tidal Even in the minority states however the

private ownership of the bed will not affect the r ights of the public

to the use of navigable waters

A review of legal documentation indicates two South Carolina

state court decisions which apply to navigation in the Catawba River

basin (6) These cases are briefly summarized below

Jackson v Lewis - In this case dealing with the Catawba River

the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked and refused to decide whether

there could be private ownership in the bed of a navigable stream and

whether a stream could be navigable in part and non-navigable at the

edge The plaintiff had a fishing stand located between an island

and the west bank of the Catawba River a portion never used for

boating He also claimed title to the land on both banks The

defendant also claimed both banks and destroyed the fishing stand

The trial court felt that it was immaterial whether the part of the

river in question was navigable or not and let the case go to the jury

reserving the question of whether there could be ownership of the bed

ie the fishing stand The jury found for the plaintiff since he

had better title to the banks In refusing to answer the question

reserved to it the Supreme Court held that if the plalntlffs grant

extended to the bed of the stream he had exclusive fishing rights and

if it did not he had the pub I Ic right to fish and in neither event

could the defendant interfere

McCullough v Wall - This was a fishing stand case in the

Catawba River In upholding a five dollar verdict for trespass by

J the defendant the court at great length reviewed the navlgabllityshy

Cheves 259 (5 C 1840)

4 Rich 68 53 Am Doc 715 (5 C 1850)

16-19

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

property problem without appreciably clarifying it The narrow

question before the court was whether the plaintiff had valid title to

a rock in the river trespassed upon by the defendant The plaintiffs

claim stemmed from his alleged title in one bank The defendant

of course claimed that the river was navigable which negated any

title to rocks or the bed of the river and gave him the right to fish

as a member of the public from any place in the river rock or othershy

wise The thrust of the defendants argument w~s that the legislature

beginning in 1795 had declared that the river be made navlgable

and that it had been Without necessarily agreeing that it had the

court found that the plaintiffs right to the bed accrued under a grant

of 1772 and that the jury had found as a fact that the river was not

then navigable and so any legislation as to Improving navigation would

be ineffective to alter title to the bed The court stated

By the corrmon law only those rivers were deemed navigable in which the tide ebbs and flows and grants of land bounded on rivers bullbull above tide water carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the centre of the stream bull and the publ ie in cases where the river is navigable for boats and rafts have an easement therein or a right of passage as a publ ic highway

It is noted that the court also said

liThe occasion does not require any exact definition to be now given of a navigable river according to the law of this State in which the ownership of the soil shall not belong to the riparian proprietors perhaps the principal occasion of dispute on the subject has been the use of the term navigable which has a popular signification different from the technical one which Is given to It by the common law

Accordingly the case found that the common l~w definition of navigable

rivers (those in which the tide ebbs and flows) had not been changed

by any authoritative decision In the state Under the case the courts

were not I ikely to extend the rules which applied to rivers teChnically

navigable to any rivers above the falls which naturally obstructed

) any serviceable use of the water for transportation above the falls

at any rate the common law as to the ownership of the soil and the

right of fishing incident thereto subsisted unchanged

16-20

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

)

North Carolina State Court Cases

The issue of navigability has arisen in a number of actions in

the state courts of North Carolina However most of these cases

concern coastal areas not within the boundary of the Charleston

District

Basically the English common-law rule that streams are navigable

only as far as tidewater extends is not the rule in North Carolina

Thus unlike South Carolina as discussed previously North Carolina

conforms to the majority rule within the U S

A review of legal documentation indicates one North Carolina state

court decision which applies to navigation in the Catawba River basin (6)

This case is briefly summarized below

Commissioners of Burke County v Catawba Lumber Co - This case

dealing with the Catawba and Johns Rivers held that the river was a

floatable stream in which the public h~d an easement the reasonable

use of which was paramount to the rights of riparian owners The case

also held that floatable rivers are navigable highways in which the

publ ic has an easement paramount to the rights of riparian owners

and in order to establish such easement it is unnecessary to show that

the river is susceptible to use continously during the whole year but

it is sufficient if it appears that businessmen may calculate that

with tolerable regularity as to seasons the water will rise and remain

at such height as will enable them to make it profitable as a highway

for transporting logs to mills or markets lower down

Recent Federal Litigation

A review of recent Federal regulatory litigation concerning the

Charleston District reveals no court actions pertaining to the Catawba

River basin

Federal Agency Jurisdiction

The del ineation of IInavigable waters of the U 5 11 as discussed

earlier in essence defines the Federal navigation servitude and is

bull 116 N c 731 21 S E 941 (1895)

16-21

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

applicable to Federal jurisdiction generally (not merely applicable

to the Corps of Engineers) No matter which Federal agency or activity

may be involved the assertion of navigability (linavigable waters of

the U 5 11 ) arises under the U S Constitution or under application

of Federal statute

By virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and

the clause empowering Congress to make all laws necessary to carry into

execution the Federal judicial power in admiralty and maritime matters

navigable waters of the U 5 are under the control of Congress which

has the power to legislate with respect thereto It is for Congress to

determine when and to what extent its power shall be brought into

activity It may be exercised through general or special laws by

Congressional enactments or by delegation of authority

Thus Congress has power which is paramount to that of the states

to make improvements in the navigable streams of the U S and for this

purpose to determine and declare what waters are navigable The Federal

government also has the power to regulate the use of and navigation on

navigable waters

The above presents the basis upon which Federal jurisdiction in

navigable waters of the U 5 is established The basic definition

or jurisdictional concept of navigable waters of the U 5 remains

consistent irrespective of which department or office of the Federal

government may be delegated particular responsibility For instance

the safety inspection and marine working functions of the U S Coast

Guard embrace vessel traffic within navigable waters of the U 5 as

previously defined

With specific reference to agency regulation of construction or

work within navigable waters of the U 5 other than by the Corps

of Engineers the Department of Transportation Act of 15 October 1966

(PL 89-670) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation

certain functions powers and duties previously vested in the Secretary

) of the Army and the Chief of Engineers By delegation of authority

from the Secretary of Transportation the Commandant U S Coast Guard

16-22

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

has been authorized to exercise certain of these functions powers and

duties relating to the location and clearances of bridges and causeways

in the navigable waters of the U S

An additional agency of particular interest concerning work or

construction within navigable waters of the U S is the Federal

Power Commission The Federal Power Act Title 16 United States Code

Sections 791 et seq contemplates the construction and operation of

water power projects on navigable waters in pursuance of licenses

granted by the Federal Power Commission The statute was enacted to

develop conserve and utilize the navigation and water power resources

of the nation The act provides for the improvement of n~vigatlon

development of water power and use of public lands to ~ke progress

with the development of the water power resources of the nation

)

16-23

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

SECTION 6 - NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Navigation Classification Procedures

As noted in Section 5 definition of navigability is not subject

to a single precise formula which applies to every circumstance Many

factors including stream physical characteristics (depth width flow

slope etc) presence of obstructions court decisions authorized

navigation projects potential for reasonable improvements and suscepshy

tibility of a stream to interstate commerce activities playa role

in the decision-making process for classifying waterbodles in the

Charleston District In an effort to make the analytical process conshy

cerning stream classifications as systematic as possible a Navigashy

bility Decision Diagra~1 has been developed and is presented in Figure I

This diagram has been utilized as a guide in assessing the various

navigation classifications for streams In the Charleston District The

Summary Report includes a detailed presentation on the methodology and

approaches used in the analysis however the following presents a brief

synopsis of the techniques as indicated in Figure I

Tidal Influenced Areas - Tidal areas (see Item I in Figure I)

which are affected by mean high water are classified Ilnavigable waters

of the U S according to various legislative and judicial actions

The Ilnavigable waters of the U S are subject to regulatory Jurisshy

diction by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies Even though all

tidal areas are so classified and subject to regulatory procedures

many are not practically navigable based upon past andlor present

requirements for vessels Figure I shows that some additional check

analyses are necessary to distinguish those tidal waters which are

actually capable of practical navigation Investigation of the tidal

areas is beyond the scope of this study however drawings showing the

plan of major rivers to their mouth often tidal influenced are

presented in the interest of continuity

) Waters of the U S Above Headwaters - Section 404 of PL 92-500

considers the headwaters of waterbodles to be the point at which the

mean annual flow is five cfs Waterbodles or portions of waterbodies

16-24

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

lEgtTIDAL INFLUENCE ~__________~~C~HECI( PRACTICAL

L ___--___--J1r NAVIGATION

)

DECISION DIAGRAM Figure 1

CHARLESTON DISTRICT ~tl - STANLEY CONSULTANTS ________ U_S ARIIY CORPS OF ENCINEERS~wl

WATERS

OF THE US ~ ABOVE HEADmiddot

WATERS

WATEJlS OF li THE US I

HE AN ANMUAL flOW LESS THAN ) cfs

2

YES AUTHO RIZED NAYIGATION ~

PROJECT AREA 3 ~ PRE SENT CORPS JURISDICTION

EXERCISED FEDERAL COURT CASES ~

DECIDING V IGBllIT~ ~ 5

PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAVIGATION

HAVIGABlE 11

PRE SE NT CONDITION NAVIGABLE WITH ~

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ~

bull SUSCEPTI BlE TO

TERSTATE COMMERCE

bull

9

YES

YES

HAY IGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

REGULAT~

T ------II y ____ J

I I I I ~ I I I I I

PRESENT INTERSTATE CO~HERCE NAVIGATION

NAVIGABLE PRESENT CONDITION

YES

YEs l

I YES IL~ AVIGABlE WITH

REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS

NAVIGABLE WATERS

OF THE U S

~CTlC~

NAVIGABI LlTY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

located upstream of the headwaters are nationally permitted by law and

will not require an individual application for dredge or fill dIscharge

permits provided the proposed work will meet certain conditions

However these waters are classified waters of the US and are )

within Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as applicable to SectIon 404

item 2 in Figure I shows the testing procedure for the five cfs point

Authorized Navigation Project Area - Any streams which currently

have authorized Federal projects to aid navigation are classified as

5 11navigable waters of the U (Item 3 in Figure I) Many of the

projects thus authorized were based upon conditions which are not currently

appl icabl e (for example use of pole boats or steamboats for justifying

the navigation benefits) Consequently many of the streams having

older authorized projects will not allow passage of present-day

commercial navigation vessels without some additional Improvement

Thus some portions of the authorized project areas are not considered

practical for navigation Figure I shows the additional check proshy

cedure which has been followed to assess the practical limit of navlshy

gable waters of the U 5

Present Corps Jurisdiction Exercised - The Corps of Engineers

is exercising jurisdiction on several non-tidal waterbodles which

are not covered by authorized projects (Item 4 in Figure I) (31)

Determinations previously made on these wate rbodles under the River

and Harbor Act indicated use for Interstate commerce and hence the

current classification as navigable waters of the US Some of

these streams are not currently navigable by present-day commercial

vessels and thus have practical limits Figure I shows the check

used to assess the practical limits of navigable waters of the U 5

Federal Court Decisions - As noted in Section 5 Federal case law

is the predominant indicator which is to be used for establishing

Federal jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Charleston District ( Item

5 in Figure I) Several decisions have been rendered which classify

certain streams in the district as navigable waters of the U 5

However some of these court decisions have been arrived at under

different circumstances or without the benefit of the data developed

as a part of this investigation Therefore even though some of the

16-26

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

streams are classified by judicial review as navigable waters of the

US they are not practical for navigation with present~day vessels

Figure J shows the steps necessary to IIcheckll those portions of the

5 11IInavigabJe waters of the U which are capable of practical navigation

Present Interstate Commerce Navigation ~ Any rivers currently

involved in interstate corrmerce activities are classified as Unavlgable

waters of the U Su from both the regulatory and practical standpoint

(see Item 6 in Figure I)

Waters of the U s Below Headwaters - For those streams or portions

of streams not subject to authorized projects court cases or present

interstate commerce navigation several additional tests for determining

navigability are required (Items 7 and 8 in Figure I) If the waterbody

is not judged to be navigable in Its present state or with reasonable

improvements then it is beyond the limit of navigable waters of the

5 11U and is termed waters of the US over the remaining length

These waters of the US (as well as the IInavigable waters of the

U 5 11 ) up to the headwaters (five cfs points) of the streams are subject

to jurisdiction under Section 404 of PL 92-500 A general or Individual

permit is required for discharge of dredged or fill material below the

headwaters (five cfs point) of waters of the US Discharges above

the headwaters are discussed in the previous subsection IIWaters of the

U s Above Headwaters

Interstate Commerce - Some non-tidal waters in the district are

not now subject to authorized projects court decisions or Interstate

commerce navigation but can be navigated under present or reasonably

improved conditions These streams may be considered for classification

as IInavigable waters of the US if they are susceptible to interstate

commerce activities (past present or future) A combined judgment

considering both reasonable improvement factors (Item 8 In Figure J)

and interstate cOlT1Tlercell factors (Item 9 in Figure J) has often been

utilized in arriving at the conclusions and recolT1Tlendatlons concerning

) navigabil ity of waterbodies in the Charleston District The Summary

Report provides further details on these factors

16-27

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

Navigation Classification Categories

This study classifies streams into several different categories

each of which is discussed subsequently

1 Present navigable waters of the U S (by regulatory

procedures)

2 Historically navigable waters (based on literature review)

3 Recorrrnended navigable waters of the U S (based upon data

developed as a part of this investigation)

4 Recorrrnended waters for practical navigation (within navigable

waters of the U 5 11 )

5 Headwaters for all waterbodies (five cfs points)

The first four navigation classifications are displayed on the

plates presented later in this report The headwater limits are

summarized in Appendix A

Present Navigable Waters of the U S

Currently the Catawba River is classified as IInavlgable waters

5 11of the U to Mountain Is land lake Dam (RM 1635) (6) This

classification is based on the Federal court decision presented in

Section 5 and includes the entire Wateree River and part of the Catawba

River as well as all of the reservoirs located downstream of RM

1635 Plate 16-3 presents the map location A five-mile discrepancy

between river mileage shown on the plate and mileage presented in

this section exists As discussed in the Summary Report the source

of river mileage used for graphical presentation in this study sometimes

differs from river mileage referred to in court decisions

Historically Navigable Waters

As discussed in Section 4 the Catawba River was historically

interpreted to be navigable as far as Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

Plate 16-3 presents the map location of this limit

)

16-28

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

Recommended Navigable Waters of the U S

5 11The recommended limit of navigable waters of the U on the

Catawba River is at Mountain Island Lake Dam (RM 1635) This

is the same limit as the present classification and is based on the Federal court decision presented in Section 5 (see Plate 16-3 for

map location)

Recommended Practical Navigable Waters of the U S

The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as prac shy

tical navigable waters of the U 5 This recommendation is based

on the absence of navigable locks or passages through the dams located

on the river and the significant magnitude of work required to install

these types of facilities The recommended limit of practical navigation

is at Wateree Lake Dam (R M 76 I) several miles below the mouth of

the Catawba River (see Reports 09 and 18)

Waters of the U S

Wa ters of the US a re cons i dered to be a II streams beyond the

recommended 1imi ts of navigable waters of the US Waters of the

U 5 with more than five cfs mean annual flow require a permit for

djscharge of dredged or fill material Waters of the U 5 with less

than five cfs mean annual flow are nationally permitted by law and will

not require an application for dredge or fill discharge permits provided

the proposed work will meet certain conditions

Appendix A 1 ists all the five cfs flow points within the Catawba

River basin Each point is located by stream code stream name latitude

and longitude and a mileage reference

Appendix B lists the lakes located in the Catawba River basin which

have surface areas between 10 and 1000 acres The lake summary Idenshy

tifies the stream basin code lake name or owner county location and

where data is available the surface area and gross storage

)

16-29

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

SECTION 7 - CONCLUSIONS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS

Five classifications of navigation on streams in the Catawba

River basin have been determined and are presented below The first

two are classifications developed from historical evidence and current

Federal stream classifications Classification 3 is based on field

measurements observations and data analysis for the river Classishy

fication 4 is based on review of all previously determined limits with a

recommendation of the most upstream location with supporting evidence of

navigability The fifth classification accounts for all streams not

otherwise classified and was determined based on the drainage area and

hydrological aspects of the stream

1 The Catawba River is presently classified navigable

waters of the U 5 from the upstream end of Fishing

Creek Reservoir (RM 110) to Mountain island Lake Dam

(RM 163S) The classification from RM 00 to 110 is

5 11navigable waters of the U as discussed In Reports

09 and 18

2 Historically the Catawba River has been interpreted to be

navigable to Morganton North Carolina (RM 257)

3 The Catawba River is not recommended to be classified as

practical navigable waters of the U 5 due to the

significant dam obstructions which would require extensive

improvements for river navigation

4 Based upon a Federal court case it is recorrrnended that

the Catawba River be classified navigable waters of the

U 5 from its mouth (RM 110) to Mountain Island

Lake Dam (RM 1635) Recommendation for areas downstream

of RM liD are given in Reports 09 and 18

5 All streams not recommended for classification as navishy

gable waters of the U 5 are recOfTlTlended for classification

as waters of the U 5 throughout their entire length

16-30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cited References

1 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources North and South Carol ina United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Forest Service and 5011 Conservation Service September 1973

2 Eastern United States 1250000 scale U S Geological Survey contour map

3 Water Resources Data for South Carolina 1975 Water Data Report 75-1 U S Geological Survey 1976

4 Summary Report Navigability Study U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District by Stanley Consultants 1977

5 Water Resources Data for North Carolina Water Year 1975 Water Data Report N c 75-1 u S Geological Survey Raleigh North Carolina 1976

6 legal Documentation for Navigability Study 1977 and Determination of Navigability of Catawba River North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina

7 South Carolina Streamflow Characteristics Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration U S Geological Survey Columbia South Carolina 1967

8 Thomas ND Summaries of Streamflow Records State of North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Water and Air Resources Raleigh North Carolina 1973

9 Project Maps Charleston District 1975 U S Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Charleston South Carolina 1975

10 Extract Report of the Charleston S C District Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities U S Departshyment of the Army USGPO Washington D C 1974 pp 7-16

1I Savage Henry River of the Carolinas The Santee UNC Press Chapel Hi II 1968 pp 58-67

12 Preslar Charles J A History of Catawba County Rowan Printing Co Salisbury 1954 p 61

13 McCord David J The Statutes at Large of South Carolina A S Johnston Columbia 1840 Vol VI I p 549

16-31

I

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

14 N C General Assembly Acts and Statutes of the General Assembly of North Carolina Chap XVI pp 635-637

15 Ib id Chap XXX II p 32

16 Ibid Chap LX III p 23

17 Jbid bull Chap XXXIV p 19

18 Ibid Chap XXV p 18 Chap CXCV p 356

19 tb id Chap 388 pp 568-569

20 Phillips UI rich B A Historl of Trans~ortation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860 Columbia University Press New York 1908 p 91

21 Kohn David and Glenn Bess eds Internal Im~rovement in South Carol ina 1817-1828 Report of the Civi I and Mi I itary Engineer of South Carolina OBI8) USGPO Washington 1938 p A12

22 Ibid pp 289 344

23 Holl is Daniel W Costly Delusion Inland Navigation In the South Carol ina Piedmont Proceedings of the S C Historical Association 1968 p 37

24 Ibid p 40

25 U S War Department Annual Re~ort of the Chief of Engineers U S Army 1876 Pt I pp 367-368 372

26 Ibid pp 373 375

27 u S War Department Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers U S Arml 1888 Pt I p 95B

28 U S Congress House Wateree River South Carolina H Doc No 185 58th Cong 2d Sess 1903 pp 6-7 Board of Trade of Georgeshytown S C The Rivers of South and North Carolina enterln Win ah Bay SO CA Georgetown Edward Perry 1 9 no page numbers see various subsections

29 u S Department of the Interior Water Resources Investigations in North Carolina 1965 (Washington USGPO 1965) p 7

30 U S Department of the Army Waterborne Commerce of the United J States 1975 Pt I Waterwals and Harbors Atlantic Coast p 124

31 Incom~lete List of Navigable Waters RCS ENGCW-ON (aT) u S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston South Carolina 1965

16-32

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

Other Background Information

Blythe LeGette Hornets Ne~t The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County McNa Ily of Charlotte Charlotte 1961

Catawba River Silver Creek and Bailey Fork Flood Plain Information Morganton N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carolina January 1970

Catawba River and Mill Creek Flood Plain Information McDowell County N C U S Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District Charleston South Carol ina June 1971

Cumming William P North Carolina In Maps State Department of Archives and History Raleigh 1966

Laney F B Bibliography of North Carolina Geology Mineralogy and Geography N C Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 18 E M Uzzell Raleigh 1909

McMaster F Hugh History of Fairfield County South Carolina The State Commercial Printing Co Columbia 1946

N C Governors Office Records Journal of the Commissioners of Navigation 1819 State Archives Raleigh 1819

S C Water Resources Commission A Reconnaissance Survey of Streams in the South Carolina Coastal Plain S C Water Resources Commission Columbia 1971

Wittkowsky G H and J L Moselby Kershaw County Economic and Social Bulletin No 120 USC Press Columbia 1923

J

16-33

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

)

middot

USGS BASE MAP SPARTANBURG SC NC 1953 Revised 1969 NI 17-5

bull

L[QNO H

t reg _ u n HI uamp

reg MISTOIIIC IT

_01_000_ __ _ _ _tOO _ ~_shy

1s Am

~-

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repofl No 0608091011 1 15 1616

IlAVIUIIU11 STUD Pbite 16middot2

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

)

)

---- gt- ~--

~ ~ - shy

-shy -- - --shy

USGS BASE MAP CHARLOTTE NC SC 1953 Rvlsed 1974 NI 17-

N

tbull bull M to

~ In mil

l(GgtW CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

Reparl No 11 15 16 1718

NAVIGABILITY STUDY Plate 16 middot3

=~ ~reg u~ 01 Y reg fOOllt H reg IC or o 10EC000Ilt_ shyreg go ICI _TIM 01 U 0001- TUampClt ~ _ff

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

LEGEND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

USGS BASE MAP N reg liMIT laquo u1 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN KNOXVI LlE TENNNC SC bull bull reg TOo U IT Of ~IGATOOH RepOrt NO 14151618 1957 Revised 1972 reg TICAe MI Of Go 0-bull01 NAVIGABILITY STUDY NI 17-1 reg u u AnO HE U-1 (cow_DI Platet

1Cf

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

)

)

-LEGEND

USGS BASE MAP reg Ut Mil Of W Of T Y

WINSTON SALEM NCVA TENN reg 0111( Of IOA_bull J1953 Revised 1972 ~-~--- ---- reg _IC _~uTe n II NJ -17-11---== ~____~~c~ reg _ Of nil In ~_Olt _-_I

$ AUn COIPS OF (NG lnns

i~ CIllIl($tGII limier

_ITMUlt~

bull

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Repo 1 No 16 1118

NAVIGABILITY STUDY

REPORT K EY

No Name

01 COOSAWHATCHIE RiveR AREA

COMBAHEE02 RIVER AREA

EDISTO RIVER 03 AREA

COOPER RiveR04 AREA

SANTEE RIVER05 BASIN

BLACK RIVER06 AREA

07 WACCAMAW RIVER BASIN

08 CONGAREE RIVER BASIN

09 WATEREE RIVER BASIN

10 LYNCHES RIVER BASIN

11 GREAT PEE DEE RIVER BASIN

12 LITTLE peE DEE RIVER BASIN

13 LUMBER RIVER BASIN

14 SALUDA RIVER BASIN

15 BROAD RiveR BASIN

16 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN

17 YAOKIN RIVER BASIN

18 LAKES (Greater than 1000 acres)

~

bull

I US ARMY CORPS OF ENG INE[RS CHARLEST()t( DISTRICT

~ LOCATION MAPCHAR LESTON DISTR ICT

Charles to bull South C~rliu bull bull bull NAVIGABILITY STUDYI --- IiiSTAHlpoundlt COHSUITNltTS Plaie 16-1

APPENDIX A

STREAM CATALOG

This appendix presents a coded listing of all streams located in

the Catawba River basin having a mean annual flow greater than or

equal to five cfs This summary does not include secondary streams

in the drainage area for Wateree Lake (18-06) Fishing Creek Reservoir

(18-08) Lake Wylie (Lake Catawba) (18-11) Mountain Island Lake (18-12)

Lake Norman (18-19) lookout Shoals lake (18-21) lake Hickory (18-22)

Rhodhiss Lake (18-23) or Lake James (18-24) These stream codes are

presented in Report 18

In order to provide a sequential stream catalog along the

Wateree-Catawba River network cataloging on the Catawba River has

been started at the confluence of Big Wateree Creek and the Catawba

River (RM 920)

The points where flow is approximately equal to five cfs (headshy

waters) are defined by approximate longitude and latitude and river

miles from the nearest named tributary major highway railroad or

other similar reference point Some streams listed in the tabulation

may not have headwater locations identified This occurs when the

name of a stream changes at a confluence where the flow immediately

downstream is greater than five cfs Thus the headwater locations

for streams with more than one name are associated with the appropriate

upstream name found on USGS quadrangle maps Some streams in this

appendix I isting are also coded in other reports for this study Crossshy

references to specific reports are noted

The coding system shown in the tabulation uses a procedure developed

by the Charleston District Corps of Engineers Streams are summarized

from the mouth of the major river upstream to the report boundary

USGS data was used to identify the location where the mean annual

stream flow is five cfs Flow records from gaging stations throughout

J the Charleston District were evaluated and an isoflow map developed

to indicate variations in runoff (cfs per square mile) These runoff

16-AI

values were then applied to the appropriate stream drainage areas

(as determined from USGS quadrangle maps) so that a flow of five cfs

was approximated

)

16-A2

I

APPEl-DIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f----------r----r------------~

HEADWATER LDCATION ( Nean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE NILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DOWII

16 01

01

02 ~

03

o o

01

02 01

01

02

03 01

Dual code in Report 18

Catawba River 35 36 25

34 44 35Rocky Creek

35 00 45Fishing Creek

3437 10Camp Creek

34 34 40Cedar Creek 34 50 15Cane Creek

34 40 55Rum Creek

34 40 50Bear Creek

34 43 40Gills Creek

Hannahs Creek 34 43 35 344050Turkey Quarter Creek

Camp Creek

34 47 00North Prong

IN Dual code in Report 09

82 14 45

8I 10 20

81 13 00

804435

80 45 50

803955

80 48 25 80 41 10

803935 80 45 25

8044 50

80 41 05

03

19

25

27

26 24

97 05

18

12

Fonfluence-Chestnu t ~ranch

~ c 72 amp 121 ~ighway Bridge

~t US 49 Highway Bridge

SC 19 Secondary Highway Bridge

Bell Branch

Booger Branch

Cane Creek

Dry Creek

Bear Creek

Gills Creek

Bear Creek

Camp Creek

APPE~IX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f--T-----y---y--~r_I

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES

( )CO )1 UP DOWII

16 01 06

07

01 cshyo raquo 02

01

03

04

01

02

03

08

Waxhaw Creek

Twelvemile Creek

Rone Branch

Sixmi Ie Creek

Tark 11 Branch

West Fork-Twelvemile Cr

East Fork-Twelvemile Cr

Blythe Creek

l i ttle Twelvemile Creek

Price Mill Creek

Sixmi Ie Creek

345255

34 54 45

35 02 15

34 57 30

3501 50

350005

34 56 45

345700

35 01 50

34 53 55

8041 15

80 48 15

80 45 50

80 48 12

80 40 40

80 39 50

80 44 25

80 39 40

80 40 40

80 54 30

07

24

12

09

14

07

1 8

37

N C Secondary 1126 Highway Br idge

At SC 75 Highway Bridge

Flat Branch

Long Branch

NC Secondary 1346 Highway Bridge

Molly Mine Creek

East Fork-Twelvemile Creek

NC Seocndary 1329 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Davis Mine Creek

Catawba River

APPEtVlX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ $ 4~ ~ g tf ~~=~~ - ~ ~ It ~ ~ STREAM NAME

tsect tsect ~ A tq S ~ ~~~Jf~ -f

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE FROMLONG TUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOIIII

0116 09 01 02

01

02

03

04

03

01

04

05

Sugar Creek

Steele Creek

McAlpine Creek

McMullen Creek

Fourmi Ie Creek

Irvins Creek

Campbell Creek

li tt Ie Sugar Creek

Brier Creek

Coffey Creek

Taggart Creek

a I ker Branch1680 57 1035 07 00 5 74 Highway 2080 43 0035 10 55 ridge

haron View Road0 680 48 5035 08 50 c 16 Highway

Bridge 80 44 25 2335 06 00

N C Secondary 3143 Highway Bridge

0280 41 5535 09 45

McAlpine Creek80 44 1035 10 45 13 Southern Railroad Bridge

0435 15 00 80 48 35

us 74 Highway2480 46 2035 14 10 Bridge

Confluence-Eagle80 56 1535 10 45 Lake

Sugar Creek0835 12 05 80 55 15

APPOlllX A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow =5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES ( ) ( ) UP OOWN

16 01 09

10

II

12

13 14

15

16

17 18

19

06

01

01

Irwin Creek

Stewart Creek

BUfgis Creek

Manchester Creek

Big Dutchman Creek

Little Dutchman Creek

Allison Creek

Crowders Creek

Mill Creek

Catawba Creek

South Fork Catawba R

Paw Creek

long Creek

351545

351515

35 56 20

355650

35 00 00

34 58 40

35 05 15 35 14 30

35 07 15

35 14 00

35 15 35

35 21 40

805010

8051 55

80 54 35

805820

81 02 15

81 01 00 81 14 50

81 17 25

81 05 05

81 08 45

80 56 20

80 51 50

01

01

09

16

18

04

15

22

02

24

US 21 Highway Bridge

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Bridge

Catawba River

Catawba River

little Dutchman Cr

Big Dutchman Creek

Morris Branch

~bernethy Creek

~C 274 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Shoal Sr

~s 85 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Dixon Sr

Dual code in Report lB

APPENJIX A

STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATI TUDE FROMLONGITUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOWN

raquo-

STREAM CODE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~l~~

f ~ ~ ~ lti STREraquo4 NAME ~~~ffi ~tt~ S

ltgt ~

16 01

~ ~

20

21

22

01

02

03

i ~ ~ ~

Dutchmans Creek

Stanley Creek

Ki llian Creek

Forney Creek

Anderson Creek

Ballard Creek

Wingate Creek

Leepers Creek

Li ppard Creek

Johnson Creek

McDowell Creek

1480 04 2535 22 00

0281 03 0535 31 10

1681 00 4535 28 15

0535 30 25 80 05 35

80 04 2035 30 50

81 08 15 1335 33 05

1135 24 15 80 59 10

80 52 45 2935 26 45

NC Secondary 1918 Highway Bri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

N C 73 Highway Sri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Wilkinson Creek

NC Secondary 1343 Highway Bridge

Seaboa rd Ccas t Line Railroad Bridge

Torrence Creek

01

02

03

01

01

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX A

STREAM CATALOG

This appendix presents a coded listing of all streams located in

the Catawba River basin having a mean annual flow greater than or

equal to five cfs This summary does not include secondary streams

in the drainage area for Wateree Lake (18-06) Fishing Creek Reservoir

(18-08) Lake Wylie (Lake Catawba) (18-11) Mountain Island Lake (18-12)

Lake Norman (18-19) lookout Shoals lake (18-21) lake Hickory (18-22)

Rhodhiss Lake (18-23) or Lake James (18-24) These stream codes are

presented in Report 18

In order to provide a sequential stream catalog along the

Wateree-Catawba River network cataloging on the Catawba River has

been started at the confluence of Big Wateree Creek and the Catawba

River (RM 920)

The points where flow is approximately equal to five cfs (headshy

waters) are defined by approximate longitude and latitude and river

miles from the nearest named tributary major highway railroad or

other similar reference point Some streams listed in the tabulation

may not have headwater locations identified This occurs when the

name of a stream changes at a confluence where the flow immediately

downstream is greater than five cfs Thus the headwater locations

for streams with more than one name are associated with the appropriate

upstream name found on USGS quadrangle maps Some streams in this

appendix I isting are also coded in other reports for this study Crossshy

references to specific reports are noted

The coding system shown in the tabulation uses a procedure developed

by the Charleston District Corps of Engineers Streams are summarized

from the mouth of the major river upstream to the report boundary

USGS data was used to identify the location where the mean annual

stream flow is five cfs Flow records from gaging stations throughout

J the Charleston District were evaluated and an isoflow map developed

to indicate variations in runoff (cfs per square mile) These runoff

16-AI

values were then applied to the appropriate stream drainage areas

(as determined from USGS quadrangle maps) so that a flow of five cfs

was approximated

)

16-A2

I

APPEl-DIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f----------r----r------------~

HEADWATER LDCATION ( Nean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE NILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DOWII

16 01

01

02 ~

03

o o

01

02 01

01

02

03 01

Dual code in Report 18

Catawba River 35 36 25

34 44 35Rocky Creek

35 00 45Fishing Creek

3437 10Camp Creek

34 34 40Cedar Creek 34 50 15Cane Creek

34 40 55Rum Creek

34 40 50Bear Creek

34 43 40Gills Creek

Hannahs Creek 34 43 35 344050Turkey Quarter Creek

Camp Creek

34 47 00North Prong

IN Dual code in Report 09

82 14 45

8I 10 20

81 13 00

804435

80 45 50

803955

80 48 25 80 41 10

803935 80 45 25

8044 50

80 41 05

03

19

25

27

26 24

97 05

18

12

Fonfluence-Chestnu t ~ranch

~ c 72 amp 121 ~ighway Bridge

~t US 49 Highway Bridge

SC 19 Secondary Highway Bridge

Bell Branch

Booger Branch

Cane Creek

Dry Creek

Bear Creek

Gills Creek

Bear Creek

Camp Creek

APPE~IX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f--T-----y---y--~r_I

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES

( )CO )1 UP DOWII

16 01 06

07

01 cshyo raquo 02

01

03

04

01

02

03

08

Waxhaw Creek

Twelvemile Creek

Rone Branch

Sixmi Ie Creek

Tark 11 Branch

West Fork-Twelvemile Cr

East Fork-Twelvemile Cr

Blythe Creek

l i ttle Twelvemile Creek

Price Mill Creek

Sixmi Ie Creek

345255

34 54 45

35 02 15

34 57 30

3501 50

350005

34 56 45

345700

35 01 50

34 53 55

8041 15

80 48 15

80 45 50

80 48 12

80 40 40

80 39 50

80 44 25

80 39 40

80 40 40

80 54 30

07

24

12

09

14

07

1 8

37

N C Secondary 1126 Highway Br idge

At SC 75 Highway Bridge

Flat Branch

Long Branch

NC Secondary 1346 Highway Bridge

Molly Mine Creek

East Fork-Twelvemile Creek

NC Seocndary 1329 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Davis Mine Creek

Catawba River

APPEtVlX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ $ 4~ ~ g tf ~~=~~ - ~ ~ It ~ ~ STREAM NAME

tsect tsect ~ A tq S ~ ~~~Jf~ -f

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE FROMLONG TUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOIIII

0116 09 01 02

01

02

03

04

03

01

04

05

Sugar Creek

Steele Creek

McAlpine Creek

McMullen Creek

Fourmi Ie Creek

Irvins Creek

Campbell Creek

li tt Ie Sugar Creek

Brier Creek

Coffey Creek

Taggart Creek

a I ker Branch1680 57 1035 07 00 5 74 Highway 2080 43 0035 10 55 ridge

haron View Road0 680 48 5035 08 50 c 16 Highway

Bridge 80 44 25 2335 06 00

N C Secondary 3143 Highway Bridge

0280 41 5535 09 45

McAlpine Creek80 44 1035 10 45 13 Southern Railroad Bridge

0435 15 00 80 48 35

us 74 Highway2480 46 2035 14 10 Bridge

Confluence-Eagle80 56 1535 10 45 Lake

Sugar Creek0835 12 05 80 55 15

APPOlllX A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow =5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES ( ) ( ) UP OOWN

16 01 09

10

II

12

13 14

15

16

17 18

19

06

01

01

Irwin Creek

Stewart Creek

BUfgis Creek

Manchester Creek

Big Dutchman Creek

Little Dutchman Creek

Allison Creek

Crowders Creek

Mill Creek

Catawba Creek

South Fork Catawba R

Paw Creek

long Creek

351545

351515

35 56 20

355650

35 00 00

34 58 40

35 05 15 35 14 30

35 07 15

35 14 00

35 15 35

35 21 40

805010

8051 55

80 54 35

805820

81 02 15

81 01 00 81 14 50

81 17 25

81 05 05

81 08 45

80 56 20

80 51 50

01

01

09

16

18

04

15

22

02

24

US 21 Highway Bridge

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Bridge

Catawba River

Catawba River

little Dutchman Cr

Big Dutchman Creek

Morris Branch

~bernethy Creek

~C 274 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Shoal Sr

~s 85 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Dixon Sr

Dual code in Report lB

APPENJIX A

STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATI TUDE FROMLONGITUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOWN

raquo-

STREAM CODE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~l~~

f ~ ~ ~ lti STREraquo4 NAME ~~~ffi ~tt~ S

ltgt ~

16 01

~ ~

20

21

22

01

02

03

i ~ ~ ~

Dutchmans Creek

Stanley Creek

Ki llian Creek

Forney Creek

Anderson Creek

Ballard Creek

Wingate Creek

Leepers Creek

Li ppard Creek

Johnson Creek

McDowell Creek

1480 04 2535 22 00

0281 03 0535 31 10

1681 00 4535 28 15

0535 30 25 80 05 35

80 04 2035 30 50

81 08 15 1335 33 05

1135 24 15 80 59 10

80 52 45 2935 26 45

NC Secondary 1918 Highway Bri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

N C 73 Highway Sri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Wilkinson Creek

NC Secondary 1343 Highway Bridge

Seaboa rd Ccas t Line Railroad Bridge

Torrence Creek

01

02

03

01

01

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

values were then applied to the appropriate stream drainage areas

(as determined from USGS quadrangle maps) so that a flow of five cfs

was approximated

)

16-A2

I

APPEl-DIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f----------r----r------------~

HEADWATER LDCATION ( Nean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE NILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DOWII

16 01

01

02 ~

03

o o

01

02 01

01

02

03 01

Dual code in Report 18

Catawba River 35 36 25

34 44 35Rocky Creek

35 00 45Fishing Creek

3437 10Camp Creek

34 34 40Cedar Creek 34 50 15Cane Creek

34 40 55Rum Creek

34 40 50Bear Creek

34 43 40Gills Creek

Hannahs Creek 34 43 35 344050Turkey Quarter Creek

Camp Creek

34 47 00North Prong

IN Dual code in Report 09

82 14 45

8I 10 20

81 13 00

804435

80 45 50

803955

80 48 25 80 41 10

803935 80 45 25

8044 50

80 41 05

03

19

25

27

26 24

97 05

18

12

Fonfluence-Chestnu t ~ranch

~ c 72 amp 121 ~ighway Bridge

~t US 49 Highway Bridge

SC 19 Secondary Highway Bridge

Bell Branch

Booger Branch

Cane Creek

Dry Creek

Bear Creek

Gills Creek

Bear Creek

Camp Creek

APPE~IX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f--T-----y---y--~r_I

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES

( )CO )1 UP DOWII

16 01 06

07

01 cshyo raquo 02

01

03

04

01

02

03

08

Waxhaw Creek

Twelvemile Creek

Rone Branch

Sixmi Ie Creek

Tark 11 Branch

West Fork-Twelvemile Cr

East Fork-Twelvemile Cr

Blythe Creek

l i ttle Twelvemile Creek

Price Mill Creek

Sixmi Ie Creek

345255

34 54 45

35 02 15

34 57 30

3501 50

350005

34 56 45

345700

35 01 50

34 53 55

8041 15

80 48 15

80 45 50

80 48 12

80 40 40

80 39 50

80 44 25

80 39 40

80 40 40

80 54 30

07

24

12

09

14

07

1 8

37

N C Secondary 1126 Highway Br idge

At SC 75 Highway Bridge

Flat Branch

Long Branch

NC Secondary 1346 Highway Bridge

Molly Mine Creek

East Fork-Twelvemile Creek

NC Seocndary 1329 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Davis Mine Creek

Catawba River

APPEtVlX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ $ 4~ ~ g tf ~~=~~ - ~ ~ It ~ ~ STREAM NAME

tsect tsect ~ A tq S ~ ~~~Jf~ -f

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE FROMLONG TUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOIIII

0116 09 01 02

01

02

03

04

03

01

04

05

Sugar Creek

Steele Creek

McAlpine Creek

McMullen Creek

Fourmi Ie Creek

Irvins Creek

Campbell Creek

li tt Ie Sugar Creek

Brier Creek

Coffey Creek

Taggart Creek

a I ker Branch1680 57 1035 07 00 5 74 Highway 2080 43 0035 10 55 ridge

haron View Road0 680 48 5035 08 50 c 16 Highway

Bridge 80 44 25 2335 06 00

N C Secondary 3143 Highway Bridge

0280 41 5535 09 45

McAlpine Creek80 44 1035 10 45 13 Southern Railroad Bridge

0435 15 00 80 48 35

us 74 Highway2480 46 2035 14 10 Bridge

Confluence-Eagle80 56 1535 10 45 Lake

Sugar Creek0835 12 05 80 55 15

APPOlllX A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow =5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES ( ) ( ) UP OOWN

16 01 09

10

II

12

13 14

15

16

17 18

19

06

01

01

Irwin Creek

Stewart Creek

BUfgis Creek

Manchester Creek

Big Dutchman Creek

Little Dutchman Creek

Allison Creek

Crowders Creek

Mill Creek

Catawba Creek

South Fork Catawba R

Paw Creek

long Creek

351545

351515

35 56 20

355650

35 00 00

34 58 40

35 05 15 35 14 30

35 07 15

35 14 00

35 15 35

35 21 40

805010

8051 55

80 54 35

805820

81 02 15

81 01 00 81 14 50

81 17 25

81 05 05

81 08 45

80 56 20

80 51 50

01

01

09

16

18

04

15

22

02

24

US 21 Highway Bridge

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Bridge

Catawba River

Catawba River

little Dutchman Cr

Big Dutchman Creek

Morris Branch

~bernethy Creek

~C 274 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Shoal Sr

~s 85 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Dixon Sr

Dual code in Report lB

APPENJIX A

STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATI TUDE FROMLONGITUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOWN

raquo-

STREAM CODE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~l~~

f ~ ~ ~ lti STREraquo4 NAME ~~~ffi ~tt~ S

ltgt ~

16 01

~ ~

20

21

22

01

02

03

i ~ ~ ~

Dutchmans Creek

Stanley Creek

Ki llian Creek

Forney Creek

Anderson Creek

Ballard Creek

Wingate Creek

Leepers Creek

Li ppard Creek

Johnson Creek

McDowell Creek

1480 04 2535 22 00

0281 03 0535 31 10

1681 00 4535 28 15

0535 30 25 80 05 35

80 04 2035 30 50

81 08 15 1335 33 05

1135 24 15 80 59 10

80 52 45 2935 26 45

NC Secondary 1918 Highway Bri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

N C 73 Highway Sri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Wilkinson Creek

NC Secondary 1343 Highway Bridge

Seaboa rd Ccas t Line Railroad Bridge

Torrence Creek

01

02

03

01

01

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPEl-DIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f----------r----r------------~

HEADWATER LDCATION ( Nean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE NILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DOWII

16 01

01

02 ~

03

o o

01

02 01

01

02

03 01

Dual code in Report 18

Catawba River 35 36 25

34 44 35Rocky Creek

35 00 45Fishing Creek

3437 10Camp Creek

34 34 40Cedar Creek 34 50 15Cane Creek

34 40 55Rum Creek

34 40 50Bear Creek

34 43 40Gills Creek

Hannahs Creek 34 43 35 344050Turkey Quarter Creek

Camp Creek

34 47 00North Prong

IN Dual code in Report 09

82 14 45

8I 10 20

81 13 00

804435

80 45 50

803955

80 48 25 80 41 10

803935 80 45 25

8044 50

80 41 05

03

19

25

27

26 24

97 05

18

12

Fonfluence-Chestnu t ~ranch

~ c 72 amp 121 ~ighway Bridge

~t US 49 Highway Bridge

SC 19 Secondary Highway Bridge

Bell Branch

Booger Branch

Cane Creek

Dry Creek

Bear Creek

Gills Creek

Bear Creek

Camp Creek

APPE~IX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f--T-----y---y--~r_I

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES

( )CO )1 UP DOWII

16 01 06

07

01 cshyo raquo 02

01

03

04

01

02

03

08

Waxhaw Creek

Twelvemile Creek

Rone Branch

Sixmi Ie Creek

Tark 11 Branch

West Fork-Twelvemile Cr

East Fork-Twelvemile Cr

Blythe Creek

l i ttle Twelvemile Creek

Price Mill Creek

Sixmi Ie Creek

345255

34 54 45

35 02 15

34 57 30

3501 50

350005

34 56 45

345700

35 01 50

34 53 55

8041 15

80 48 15

80 45 50

80 48 12

80 40 40

80 39 50

80 44 25

80 39 40

80 40 40

80 54 30

07

24

12

09

14

07

1 8

37

N C Secondary 1126 Highway Br idge

At SC 75 Highway Bridge

Flat Branch

Long Branch

NC Secondary 1346 Highway Bridge

Molly Mine Creek

East Fork-Twelvemile Creek

NC Seocndary 1329 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Davis Mine Creek

Catawba River

APPEtVlX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ $ 4~ ~ g tf ~~=~~ - ~ ~ It ~ ~ STREAM NAME

tsect tsect ~ A tq S ~ ~~~Jf~ -f

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE FROMLONG TUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOIIII

0116 09 01 02

01

02

03

04

03

01

04

05

Sugar Creek

Steele Creek

McAlpine Creek

McMullen Creek

Fourmi Ie Creek

Irvins Creek

Campbell Creek

li tt Ie Sugar Creek

Brier Creek

Coffey Creek

Taggart Creek

a I ker Branch1680 57 1035 07 00 5 74 Highway 2080 43 0035 10 55 ridge

haron View Road0 680 48 5035 08 50 c 16 Highway

Bridge 80 44 25 2335 06 00

N C Secondary 3143 Highway Bridge

0280 41 5535 09 45

McAlpine Creek80 44 1035 10 45 13 Southern Railroad Bridge

0435 15 00 80 48 35

us 74 Highway2480 46 2035 14 10 Bridge

Confluence-Eagle80 56 1535 10 45 Lake

Sugar Creek0835 12 05 80 55 15

APPOlllX A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow =5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES ( ) ( ) UP OOWN

16 01 09

10

II

12

13 14

15

16

17 18

19

06

01

01

Irwin Creek

Stewart Creek

BUfgis Creek

Manchester Creek

Big Dutchman Creek

Little Dutchman Creek

Allison Creek

Crowders Creek

Mill Creek

Catawba Creek

South Fork Catawba R

Paw Creek

long Creek

351545

351515

35 56 20

355650

35 00 00

34 58 40

35 05 15 35 14 30

35 07 15

35 14 00

35 15 35

35 21 40

805010

8051 55

80 54 35

805820

81 02 15

81 01 00 81 14 50

81 17 25

81 05 05

81 08 45

80 56 20

80 51 50

01

01

09

16

18

04

15

22

02

24

US 21 Highway Bridge

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Bridge

Catawba River

Catawba River

little Dutchman Cr

Big Dutchman Creek

Morris Branch

~bernethy Creek

~C 274 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Shoal Sr

~s 85 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Dixon Sr

Dual code in Report lB

APPENJIX A

STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATI TUDE FROMLONGITUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOWN

raquo-

STREAM CODE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~l~~

f ~ ~ ~ lti STREraquo4 NAME ~~~ffi ~tt~ S

ltgt ~

16 01

~ ~

20

21

22

01

02

03

i ~ ~ ~

Dutchmans Creek

Stanley Creek

Ki llian Creek

Forney Creek

Anderson Creek

Ballard Creek

Wingate Creek

Leepers Creek

Li ppard Creek

Johnson Creek

McDowell Creek

1480 04 2535 22 00

0281 03 0535 31 10

1681 00 4535 28 15

0535 30 25 80 05 35

80 04 2035 30 50

81 08 15 1335 33 05

1135 24 15 80 59 10

80 52 45 2935 26 45

NC Secondary 1918 Highway Bri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

N C 73 Highway Sri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Wilkinson Creek

NC Secondary 1343 Highway Bridge

Seaboa rd Ccas t Line Railroad Bridge

Torrence Creek

01

02

03

01

01

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPE~IX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f--T-----y---y--~r_I

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES

( )CO )1 UP DOWII

16 01 06

07

01 cshyo raquo 02

01

03

04

01

02

03

08

Waxhaw Creek

Twelvemile Creek

Rone Branch

Sixmi Ie Creek

Tark 11 Branch

West Fork-Twelvemile Cr

East Fork-Twelvemile Cr

Blythe Creek

l i ttle Twelvemile Creek

Price Mill Creek

Sixmi Ie Creek

345255

34 54 45

35 02 15

34 57 30

3501 50

350005

34 56 45

345700

35 01 50

34 53 55

8041 15

80 48 15

80 45 50

80 48 12

80 40 40

80 39 50

80 44 25

80 39 40

80 40 40

80 54 30

07

24

12

09

14

07

1 8

37

N C Secondary 1126 Highway Br idge

At SC 75 Highway Bridge

Flat Branch

Long Branch

NC Secondary 1346 Highway Bridge

Molly Mine Creek

East Fork-Twelvemile Creek

NC Seocndary 1329 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Davis Mine Creek

Catawba River

APPEtVlX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ $ 4~ ~ g tf ~~=~~ - ~ ~ It ~ ~ STREAM NAME

tsect tsect ~ A tq S ~ ~~~Jf~ -f

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE FROMLONG TUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOIIII

0116 09 01 02

01

02

03

04

03

01

04

05

Sugar Creek

Steele Creek

McAlpine Creek

McMullen Creek

Fourmi Ie Creek

Irvins Creek

Campbell Creek

li tt Ie Sugar Creek

Brier Creek

Coffey Creek

Taggart Creek

a I ker Branch1680 57 1035 07 00 5 74 Highway 2080 43 0035 10 55 ridge

haron View Road0 680 48 5035 08 50 c 16 Highway

Bridge 80 44 25 2335 06 00

N C Secondary 3143 Highway Bridge

0280 41 5535 09 45

McAlpine Creek80 44 1035 10 45 13 Southern Railroad Bridge

0435 15 00 80 48 35

us 74 Highway2480 46 2035 14 10 Bridge

Confluence-Eagle80 56 1535 10 45 Lake

Sugar Creek0835 12 05 80 55 15

APPOlllX A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow =5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES ( ) ( ) UP OOWN

16 01 09

10

II

12

13 14

15

16

17 18

19

06

01

01

Irwin Creek

Stewart Creek

BUfgis Creek

Manchester Creek

Big Dutchman Creek

Little Dutchman Creek

Allison Creek

Crowders Creek

Mill Creek

Catawba Creek

South Fork Catawba R

Paw Creek

long Creek

351545

351515

35 56 20

355650

35 00 00

34 58 40

35 05 15 35 14 30

35 07 15

35 14 00

35 15 35

35 21 40

805010

8051 55

80 54 35

805820

81 02 15

81 01 00 81 14 50

81 17 25

81 05 05

81 08 45

80 56 20

80 51 50

01

01

09

16

18

04

15

22

02

24

US 21 Highway Bridge

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Bridge

Catawba River

Catawba River

little Dutchman Cr

Big Dutchman Creek

Morris Branch

~bernethy Creek

~C 274 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Shoal Sr

~s 85 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Dixon Sr

Dual code in Report lB

APPENJIX A

STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATI TUDE FROMLONGITUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOWN

raquo-

STREAM CODE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~l~~

f ~ ~ ~ lti STREraquo4 NAME ~~~ffi ~tt~ S

ltgt ~

16 01

~ ~

20

21

22

01

02

03

i ~ ~ ~

Dutchmans Creek

Stanley Creek

Ki llian Creek

Forney Creek

Anderson Creek

Ballard Creek

Wingate Creek

Leepers Creek

Li ppard Creek

Johnson Creek

McDowell Creek

1480 04 2535 22 00

0281 03 0535 31 10

1681 00 4535 28 15

0535 30 25 80 05 35

80 04 2035 30 50

81 08 15 1335 33 05

1135 24 15 80 59 10

80 52 45 2935 26 45

NC Secondary 1918 Highway Bri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

N C 73 Highway Sri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Wilkinson Creek

NC Secondary 1343 Highway Bridge

Seaboa rd Ccas t Line Railroad Bridge

Torrence Creek

01

02

03

01

01

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPEtVlX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ $ 4~ ~ g tf ~~=~~ - ~ ~ It ~ ~ STREAM NAME

tsect tsect ~ A tq S ~ ~~~Jf~ -f

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE FROMLONG TUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOIIII

0116 09 01 02

01

02

03

04

03

01

04

05

Sugar Creek

Steele Creek

McAlpine Creek

McMullen Creek

Fourmi Ie Creek

Irvins Creek

Campbell Creek

li tt Ie Sugar Creek

Brier Creek

Coffey Creek

Taggart Creek

a I ker Branch1680 57 1035 07 00 5 74 Highway 2080 43 0035 10 55 ridge

haron View Road0 680 48 5035 08 50 c 16 Highway

Bridge 80 44 25 2335 06 00

N C Secondary 3143 Highway Bridge

0280 41 5535 09 45

McAlpine Creek80 44 1035 10 45 13 Southern Railroad Bridge

0435 15 00 80 48 35

us 74 Highway2480 46 2035 14 10 Bridge

Confluence-Eagle80 56 1535 10 45 Lake

Sugar Creek0835 12 05 80 55 15

APPOlllX A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow =5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES ( ) ( ) UP OOWN

16 01 09

10

II

12

13 14

15

16

17 18

19

06

01

01

Irwin Creek

Stewart Creek

BUfgis Creek

Manchester Creek

Big Dutchman Creek

Little Dutchman Creek

Allison Creek

Crowders Creek

Mill Creek

Catawba Creek

South Fork Catawba R

Paw Creek

long Creek

351545

351515

35 56 20

355650

35 00 00

34 58 40

35 05 15 35 14 30

35 07 15

35 14 00

35 15 35

35 21 40

805010

8051 55

80 54 35

805820

81 02 15

81 01 00 81 14 50

81 17 25

81 05 05

81 08 45

80 56 20

80 51 50

01

01

09

16

18

04

15

22

02

24

US 21 Highway Bridge

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Bridge

Catawba River

Catawba River

little Dutchman Cr

Big Dutchman Creek

Morris Branch

~bernethy Creek

~C 274 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Shoal Sr

~s 85 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Dixon Sr

Dual code in Report lB

APPENJIX A

STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATI TUDE FROMLONGITUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOWN

raquo-

STREAM CODE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~l~~

f ~ ~ ~ lti STREraquo4 NAME ~~~ffi ~tt~ S

ltgt ~

16 01

~ ~

20

21

22

01

02

03

i ~ ~ ~

Dutchmans Creek

Stanley Creek

Ki llian Creek

Forney Creek

Anderson Creek

Ballard Creek

Wingate Creek

Leepers Creek

Li ppard Creek

Johnson Creek

McDowell Creek

1480 04 2535 22 00

0281 03 0535 31 10

1681 00 4535 28 15

0535 30 25 80 05 35

80 04 2035 30 50

81 08 15 1335 33 05

1135 24 15 80 59 10

80 52 45 2935 26 45

NC Secondary 1918 Highway Bri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

N C 73 Highway Sri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Wilkinson Creek

NC Secondary 1343 Highway Bridge

Seaboa rd Ccas t Line Railroad Bridge

Torrence Creek

01

02

03

01

01

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPOlllX A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow =5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE FROMSTREAM NAME MILES ( ) ( ) UP OOWN

16 01 09

10

II

12

13 14

15

16

17 18

19

06

01

01

Irwin Creek

Stewart Creek

BUfgis Creek

Manchester Creek

Big Dutchman Creek

Little Dutchman Creek

Allison Creek

Crowders Creek

Mill Creek

Catawba Creek

South Fork Catawba R

Paw Creek

long Creek

351545

351515

35 56 20

355650

35 00 00

34 58 40

35 05 15 35 14 30

35 07 15

35 14 00

35 15 35

35 21 40

805010

8051 55

80 54 35

805820

81 02 15

81 01 00 81 14 50

81 17 25

81 05 05

81 08 45

80 56 20

80 51 50

01

01

09

16

18

04

15

22

02

24

US 21 Highway Bridge

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Bridge

Catawba River

Catawba River

little Dutchman Cr

Big Dutchman Creek

Morris Branch

~bernethy Creek

~C 274 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Shoal Sr

~s 85 Highway Br i dge

Confluence-Dixon Sr

Dual code in Report lB

APPENJIX A

STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATI TUDE FROMLONGITUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOWN

raquo-

STREAM CODE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~l~~

f ~ ~ ~ lti STREraquo4 NAME ~~~ffi ~tt~ S

ltgt ~

16 01

~ ~

20

21

22

01

02

03

i ~ ~ ~

Dutchmans Creek

Stanley Creek

Ki llian Creek

Forney Creek

Anderson Creek

Ballard Creek

Wingate Creek

Leepers Creek

Li ppard Creek

Johnson Creek

McDowell Creek

1480 04 2535 22 00

0281 03 0535 31 10

1681 00 4535 28 15

0535 30 25 80 05 35

80 04 2035 30 50

81 08 15 1335 33 05

1135 24 15 80 59 10

80 52 45 2935 26 45

NC Secondary 1918 Highway Bri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

N C 73 Highway Sri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Wilkinson Creek

NC Secondary 1343 Highway Bridge

Seaboa rd Ccas t Line Railroad Bridge

Torrence Creek

01

02

03

01

01

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A

STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 5 cfs )

STREAM LATI TUDE FROMLONGITUDE MILES

( ( ) ) UP DOWN

raquo-

STREAM CODE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~l~~

f ~ ~ ~ lti STREraquo4 NAME ~~~ffi ~tt~ S

ltgt ~

16 01

~ ~

20

21

22

01

02

03

i ~ ~ ~

Dutchmans Creek

Stanley Creek

Ki llian Creek

Forney Creek

Anderson Creek

Ballard Creek

Wingate Creek

Leepers Creek

Li ppard Creek

Johnson Creek

McDowell Creek

1480 04 2535 22 00

0281 03 0535 31 10

1681 00 4535 28 15

0535 30 25 80 05 35

80 04 2035 30 50

81 08 15 1335 33 05

1135 24 15 80 59 10

80 52 45 2935 26 45

NC Secondary 1918 Highway Bri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

N C 73 Highway Sri dge

NC Secondary 1373 Highway Bridge

Confluence-Wilkinson Creek

NC Secondary 1343 Highway Bridge

Seaboa rd Ccas t Line Railroad Bridge

Torrence Creek

01

02

03

01

01

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfo() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION ( Nean Flow 6 efa )

CD

~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ STREAM NAME LAT nUDE LONGITUDE ~ ~ ~ q i $

(S

( ltgt S ~ ) (

)~~olt~ f~ 16 01 23 Mountain Creek

24 Balls Creek 35 39 55 81 05 50

25 Norwood Creek 35 41 15 80 56 45

26 Buffalo Shoals Creek 35 46 50 81 03 45

2 Lyle Creek 35 43 40 81 14 50

01 Mclin Creek 35 40 20 81 09 55

01 Hagan Fork 35 40 35 81 08 05

02 Hull Creek 35 43 50 81 08 50

03 Bakers Creek 35 45 35 81 II 10

04 Unnamed Tributary 35 44 30 81 II 50

21 Elk Shoal Creek I 35 47 45 81 08 20

2~ Lower Little River 35 59 45 81 14 05

3( Elks Shoals Creek 35 49 55 81 04 50

STREAM NILES FROM

UP 00

~urrays Hi 11 lake

Confluence-Powder pring Branch

03

NC Secondary 1526O I Highway Bridge

Confluence-Herman Br

18 Long Creek

02 N C 10 Highway Bridge

08 Lyle Creek

13 Lyle Creek

05 lyle Creek

Confluence-Dellinger Creek

Confluence-East Pron

02 Guys Branch

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~

$ ~ ~ 9i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS sect

STREAM MAMEgt$~~ ~

~~ltI sect ltS shy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

16 01 31 Horseford Creek

32 Drowning Creek

33 Gunpowder Creek

34 Upper little River

35 Middle Little River

36 Island Creek

37 Hoyle Creek

3B McGalliard Creek

39 Howard Creek

40 Lower Creek

41 Smokey Creek

42 Stafford Creek

43 Freemason Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LAT ITUDE LONG ITUDE

NILES FROM

( ) ( ) UP DDWII

35 44 55 BI 21 40 onfluence-Frye amp ripple Creeks

35 44 45 BI 27 45 16 C Secondary 1621 ighway Bridge

35 51 50 B1 29 50 02 ngley Creek

35 54 20 B1 26 05 onfluence-McRary Cr

35 45 50 B1 30 45 16 Ca tawba River

35 45 15 B1 32 30 Confluence-Hico Cr

35 44 55 B1 35 00 Confluence-Double Br

35 46 20 B1 35 10 Confluence-Secrets Creek

35 56 45 B1 2B 30 23 NC 90 Highway Bridge

35 49 05 B1 35 10 42 Catawba River

35 47 40 B1 33 10 14 Catawba River

35 47 55 B1 30 00 20 Catawba River

I Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

0

APPEto() I X A

STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE HEADWATER LOCATION (Noan Flow 5 ch)

~ ~

~ ~ If ~ STREAM - ~ ~ LATITUDE FROMLONG ITUDE MILES~~~~ ~ STREAM NAMEgtlt-~~ ltgt ltgt ~ $

~~~i~ f~ ( ) ( ) UP DOlI

~

16 01

q

44 Johns River 36 05 40 81 41 00 onfluence-Honey Br

01 Parks Creek 35 52 40 81 44 30 ~onfluence-Carroll C

02 Wi 1son Creek 36 04 15 81 47 20 ~~nfluence-little ilson Creek

01 Harper Creek 35 59 00 81 49 35 Confluence-Hull Br

01 North Harper Creek 36 00 00 81 49 30 23 Harper Creek

02 Estes Mill Creek 35 59 25 81 45 40 Confluence-Thorps Cr

03 lost Cove Creek 36 01 45 81 50 30 Confluence-Sassafras Creek

01 Rockhouse Creek 36 01 30 81 46 50 15 Lost Cove Creek

02 Gragg Prong-Lost Cove 36 02 10 81 48 30 Confluence-Webb Cr Creek

04 Andrews Creek 36 03 55 81 47 40 05 Wi lson Creek

Mulberry Creek 36 03 15 81 38 45 Confluence-Amos Cr03 01 Little Mulberry Creek 35 58 45 81 36 55 Confluence-Spencer

Branch

02 Boone Fork-Mul berry Cr 36 00 30 81 37 45 Confluence-laurel Fork

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPEfoO I X A STREAM CATALOG

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 ch )STREAM CODE f----r--------------~

STREAM FROMLATITUDE LONGITUDE MILESSTREAM NAME

( ) ( ) UP DDWM

16 01 44 04

01

02

o 05 4

01 4E

01

01

02

01

47

01

Gragg Prong-Johns River

Anthony Creek

Racket Creek

Thunderhole Creek

Hunt i n9 Creek

East Prong-Hunting Cr

Warrior Fork

Irish Creek

Roses Creek

Upper Creek

Stee I s Creek

S i I ver Creek

Bailey Fork

360405

36 06 20

36 06 35

35 42 10

35 44 10

35 51 15

35 52 20

35 57 35 35 55 50

35 37 20

35 41 55

81 44 35

81 44 50

81 41 50 81 40 45

81 39 35

81 50 45

81 50 30

8 I 52 10

81 50 50

81 49 15

81 43 00

07

43

04

14

49

3 5

Big Branch

Confluence-Ballew Cr amp White Spring Sr

Confluence-China Cr

East Prong-Hunting C

Fiddlers Run Creek

Reedys Fork

Simpson Creek

Burnhouse Branch

Confluence-Gingercak Creek

Confluence-Brindle Creek

At US 64 Highway Bridge

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

o

APPENgtIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE ~ ~ If ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -l- cs STREAM NAME 5i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~

16

~

01

~ fi

47

4E

4~

02

03

04

01

02

~ f~

01

01

01

02

03

Li tt Ie Si lver Creek

Clear Creek

Ooub 1 e Branch

Ha 11 Creek

Canoe Creek

Huddy Creek

Old Catawba River

Shadrick Creek

North Huddy Creek

Thompsons Fork

Youngs Fork

Goose Creek

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 efa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONG ITUDE MILES

0 ( 0( ) ) UP

81 45 00 1135 43 35 81 45 4535 39 35

0335 40 50 81 45 15 81 48 00 0235 37 35

3481 49 1535 47 35

35 42 55 81 52 35 0935 37 40 81 59 55

81 55 20 1735 42 00 0481 57 5535 39 15 0435 36 20 81 59 30

DOWM

FROM

Si lver Creek

Confluence-$uttershywhite Creek

Clear Creek

US 64 Highway Branch

N C 126 Highway Sri dge

Confluence-Nix Br

us 221 Highway Br i dge

Hemph ill Creek

Jacktown Creek

us 221 Highway Bridge

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

raquo

STREAM CODE ~

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~=~

~s ~ ~ STREAM NAME ~~~ff~ t~C( S- ~

ltIi~~~~ ~~ 16 01 49 03 South Huddy Creek

01 Hoppers Creek

5( North fork Catawba

51 Dales Creek

5 Paddy Creek

5 linville River

5 Tom Creek

5 Nicks Creek

5 Buck Creek

01 Little Buck Creek

02 Licklog Creek

Dual code in Report 18

HEADWATER LOCATION ( Mean Flow 5 cfa )

STREAM LATITUDE LONGITUDE MILES FROM ( ) (

) UP DOIIIII

35 33 10 81 55 30 14 ~res Branch

35 35 45 81 51 40 Confluence-South Fork Hoppers Creek

R 35 55 45 81 56 25 31 Laure 1 Branch

35 46 25 81 57 10 11 lake James

35 48 25 81 57 10 Confluence-Yellow Fork

36 06 15 81 51 00 Confluence-Big Grassy Creek

35 46 20 82 03 20 Confluence-Harris Cr

35 40 45 82 02 35 14 Catawba Creek

35 44 45 82 09 00 Confluence-Single Cat Branch

35 45 10 82 05 50 Confluence-Deerstand Creek

35 44 20 82 09 05 Confluence-Sugar Cove Creek

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENJIX A STREAM CATALOG

STREAM CODE f-r------r--r~-7

HEADWATER LOCATIO ( Mean Flow 5 cfs )

16 01 57

58

59 60

01 02

61

01

62

01

STREAM LATITUDE LOGITUDE MI LES FROI4

( ) ( ) UP DO~

Cl ear Creek

Mackey Creek

Cane Creek

Crooked Creek

Camp Creek

little Crooked Creek

Curt i s Creek

Newberry Creek

Mill Creek

Ja r rett Creek

354255

3541 15

3539 15

35 34 10

35 34 45 353455 354215

35 41 25

35 40 40

35 39 15

820530

8209 15

82 07 40

82 13 00

82 09 00 82 II 15 82 11 30

82 13 35

82 16 05

82 13 00

13

10

15

05

22

5 70 Highway Bridge

Laurel Creek

Catawba River

Confluence-Bird Br

Crooked Creek

Conf l uence-Clarks Br

Confluence-licklog B

Confluence-Chute Br amp Right Prong Newberry

Confluence-Left Pron amp Right Prong Hi ll C

Hill Creek

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

Th i s appendix is a compilation of lakes from 10 to 1000 acres

which are contained in the Catawba River basin

This inventory was compiled from the following sources

1 Inventory of Lakes In South Carol ina Ten Acres or More in

Surface Area

2 Hydrologic Information Storage and Retrieval System

Register of Dams for North Carolina (computer printout)

3 USGS Quadrangle Maps

The USGS quadrangle maps were used to locate and to detect lakes

that were not listed in the other sources Actual surface area and

gross storage information is supplied where available The lakes

were coded by major stream basin in accordance with other procedures

developed for identifying streams The map data from Source I above

generally does not permit detailed location of the small lakes Thus

lakes are coded by basin only as far as the secondary order

16-81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

I STREAM CODE I I----r~~~~--I

SURFACE GROSS AREA STORAGE LOCATI ON

BY LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY

r bullbullnoINA)

16 01 04 Efi rd Pond 13 lancaster

16 01 04 Nesbit Pond 24 200 Lancaster

16 01 Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 07 Unnamed lake Lancaster

16 01 o Unnamed Lake lancaster

16 01 O~ 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 0 02 Unnamed Lake Lancaster

16 01 Rock amp Cedar Creek Reservoir 800 23000 Lancaster

16 01 03 Br i dges Pond 11 66 lancaster

16 01 03 Bridges Pond 13 78 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Old City Reservoir 35 252 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Lancaster Co Water Works 40 160 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 12 62 Lancaster

16 01 05 02 Betheas Pond 15 102 Lancaster

16 0) 05 02 Harpers Pond 15 108 lancaster

16 01 05 02 Parkers Pond 20 192 lancaster

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

m w

APPENDIX B SUMMARY DF ID TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE --------r-----r--r---r---

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

16 01

05

05

05

02

03

05 03

05

05

06

06

06

03

03

13 02

02 08

02 05

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Cedar Pine Lake

Burnetts Pond

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 16

Cave Creek Watershed Structure No 7

Rowe I 5 Pond

Belks Pond

Sherre II 5 Pond

Culps Pond (Culps Lake)

Andrew Jackson State Park Lake

Bowers Pond

Arthur Neeley II

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No I

Fishing Creek Watershed Structure No 2

Came ron Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

30

13

21

35

11

15

17

13

18

16

10

70

32

13

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

204

84

171

280

48

102

136

104

115

102

72 420

100

79

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROLINA1

Lancaster

Lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

lancaster

Lancas ter

Lancaste r

Lancaster

lancaste r

Lancaster

York

York

York

York

Dual ~ode in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

STREAM CODE J----r--------r--r____-I

01 02 05

01 02

01 02

01 02 06

01 02 05

01 02

01 13

01 02 06

01 02 08

01

01

01

01

01 09 01

01 09 01

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

Grady Daves

Fishing Creek Water s hed Structure No 50

Fishing Creek Wa tershed Structure No 4

Rock Hill Country Club Cameron Farms

lamar Cloaninger

Jennings S Edmond s

Arnold E Marshall

James l amp Joseph R Moss and York County Home Farm

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters

Bowaters (Ind Wa s te Pond)

Springs Farms

Springs Farms

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

25

18

14

10

10

20

18

10

15

15

15

1B

110

12

25

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

153

57

45

40

61

160

108

61

92

92

92

110

671

48 200

LOCATI ON BY

COUNTY

(SOUTH CAROL NA)

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

York

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS~

~ ~ AREA STORAGE1$ LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8YA ~ ~ ~ c~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAKE NAME OR OWllER (acres) (acre-tt) COUNTY ~ S cent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 (SOUTH CAROLINA)

16 01 Springs Farms 12 73 York

16 01 09 Superior Stone 39 23B York

16 01 II Winthrop College Farm 10 61 York

16 01 09 01 Unnamed Lake -- -- York m 16 01 14 02 Unnamed Lake -- -- York ~

16 01 09 01 Forest Lake -- -- York

16 01 Dearborn Great Falls Pond 450 16000 Chester

16 01 01 Walker M Atkinson 13 52 Chester

16 01 02 04 lake 01 iphant 40 225 Chester

16 01 02 02 Ti nkers Creek RCampD Project No 21 55 2B15 Chester

(NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 14 02 Sparrow Springs Lake -- -- Gaston

16 01 09 04 Eagle Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 04 Moody Lake -- -- Mecklenburg09

16 01 09 04 Johnson lake -- -- Mecklenburg

16 01 09 04 Whippoorwill Lake -- -- Mecklenburg

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE SURFACE GROSS

AREA STORAGE

LAKE NAME OR OWNER (acres) (acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

Meck 1 enhu rg

Mecklenburg

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Catawba

Mecklenburg

Union

Gaston

Catawba

HcDowe 11

Mecklenburg

Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell

16 01 09 02

16 01 09 02

16 01 18 09

16 01 25

16 01 18 09

16 01

16 01

16 01 07 03

16 0 I 17 02

16 01 20 03

16 01 49 03

16 01 09 02

16 01 53 03

16 01 33

16 01 33

Unnamed lake

Unnamed Lake

Unnamed Lake Hurrays Hill Lake

Unnamed Lake

Ha rwood La kes

Brinkleys Twin Lakes

Aero Plantation Pond 30

Bessemer City Reservoir 18

Cross Country Camp Ground Pond 12

Dysartsville Flood Control 33 295 (Muddy Creek Watershed) Lake 20

Forest Lake 10

Grandfather Mountain Lake 30

Gunpowder Lake 01 126 (Cuke Power Company) Gunpowder lake 02 15 (Duke Power Company)

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

bull

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----r--r---T~-I

LAKE NAME DR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY

(NORTH CAROLINA)

16 01 34 Icard lake 125 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 17 12 Jacobfork Creek Lake 52 153 Catawba

16 01 53 land Harbors Lake 65 Avery

16 01 17 Lincolnton Cottonmill

lake

Long Shoals 125 Lincoln

16 01 34 Little River Lake (Duke Power Company)

162 Caldwell amp Alexander

16 01 53 Loch Oor j e lake 35 Avery

16 01 17 Hi rror Lake 10 lincoln

16 01 54 Morgan Lake 16 128 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy (Will

Creek Watershed lake 03 Geer C W Ward)

19 186 McDowell

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Fred HoI i ck)

Lake 06A 26 396 HcOowe 11

16 01 49 02 Huddy Creek Watershed (Edwin Daniels)

Lake 08 63 876 McDowe 11

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (Ernest Pi ttman)

Lake 15 28 372 McDowell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18

APPENDIX B

SWoMARY OF 10 TO 1000 ACRE LAKES

STREAM CODE ~-----------r--I

LAKE NAME OR OWNER

SURFACE AREA

(acres)

GROSS STORAGE

(acre-ft)

LOCATION BY

COUNTY (NORTH CAROLI NA)

16 01 49 03 Huddy Creek Watershed (w B Mangus)

Lake 16 130 1732 McDowell

16 01 49 03 01 Muddy Creek Watershed (Rudolf Albert

Lake 19 28 410 McDowe 11

16 01 19 Rankin lake (City of Gastonia)

87 Gastonia

16 01 17 04 Robinson Lake 18 Gastonia

16 01 18 Robinwood Lake 35 Gastonia

16 01 14 02 Short Lake 15 Gastonia

16 01 17 Spencer Mountain Lake (Duke Power Company)

68 3000 Gastonia

16 01 07 03 Aero Plantation Pond 30 Union

16 01 30 Alspaugh Dam Carolina Glove Co 35 Alexander

16 01 17 Carpenters Lake Lincoln

16 01 Superior Cable Pond 15 Catawba

16 01 56 Tahoma Lake (Duke Power Company 161 McDowe 11

16 01 49 02 Tayorls Lake 10 HcOowe 11

16 01 09 02 Tull lake (Challis Lake) 14 Meck 1enbu rg

16 01 I ~acks Ford Cree~ Lake I trown of leniorl

95 Caldwell

Dual code in Report 18